No Specific Current Threat: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Congress Leader's Plea for Security Cover, Liberty to Re-approach if New Threats Emerge - 2025-05-26

Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Congress Leader's Security Plea, Cites No Specific Current Threat

Chandigarh, India – The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a judgment dated April 8, 2024, dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by Mr. Harmohinder Singh @ Lucky , identified as a leader of the Congress Party, who sought adequate security cover due to perceived threats to his life. Justice Anoop Chitkara , presiding over the bench, concluded that as per the assessment by authorities, the petitioner faces no specific threat at present, though liberty was granted to him to approach the respondents again if any future threats arise.

Case Background: Plea for Protection

Mr. Harmohinder Singh @ Lucky , State President of a National Political Party (later specified in submissions as a Leader of the Congress Party), approached the High Court under CRWP No. 3044 of 2024, seeking directions for adequate security cover, citing threats to his life.

The court had, via an interim order on April 8, 2024, directed the respondents, including the Union of India and U.T. Chandigarh authorities, to provide at least one armed Personal Security Officer (PSO) to the petitioner as a temporary measure pending further hearing. This interim protection was duly provided.

Respondents' Assessment: No Specific Threat Uncovered

During the proceedings, counsel for U.T. Chandigarh submitted that the allegations of threat to the petitioner's life had been thoroughly investigated from "every angle." The core of their submission was that "as of now, there is no specific threat to him by any means."

This assessment was supported by an affidavit dated March 20, 2024, filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security Headquarters, U.T. Chandigarh. The affidavit detailed inquiries made, including into three WhatsApp numbers from which threatening calls were allegedly received by the petitioner.

Furthermore, the court was informed that a Protection Review Group (PRG) meeting was convened on April 13, 2024, to discuss the security matter concerning Mr. Singh . The affidavit recorded the findings from this PRG meeting, quoting a report from Intelligence Agencies: "There is no specific threat to Mr. Harmohinder Singh @ Lucky , Leader of the Congress Party, residing at H. No. 1102, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, from anyone within the jurisdiction of UT Chandigarh."

The U.T. counsel also highlighted that while the existing security of one PSO (provided under interim orders) might continue pending directions in a "CWP No. 3044/2024" (with a next hearing scheduled for May 1, 2024), extensive preventive measures were already in place. These included instructions to local police and PCR vehicle officials for regular patrols around the petitioner's residence in Sector 8-C and his office at the Territorial Congress Committee in Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. Staff were directed to remain "extra vigilant" to ensure area security and "thwart any untoward incident."

Court's Rationale and Decision

After considering the submissions, Justice Anoop Chitkara found no grounds to contradict the authorities' assessment. The judgment noted: "There is no material before the Court to dispute the specific conclusion arrived at by the respondents."

Concluding that the foundational basis for the petition – an existing threat – was not substantiated by the official inquiries, the court stated: "Since the petitioner is not facing any threat at present, the petition does not survive and is hereby disposed of."

However, the High Court granted Mr. Singh the liberty "to represent to the concerned respondents in case of any threat to his life or liberty in future, which will be looked into and an appropriate action will be taken."

The dismissal implies that the interim security provided under the court's earlier order would cease, subject to any separate arrangements or decisions related to other pending matters, if any. The authorities remain obligated to assess any new information regarding threats to the petitioner should he approach them in the future.