The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has mandated that the Punjab Police provide immediate armed security to an advocate who reported persistent surveillance and intimidation following his initiation of legal proceedings against local law enforcement officials. In a ruling delivered on October 13, 2026, the court determined that the advocate, Manish Modi, requires state-provided protection as an interim measure to ensure his ability to practice law without fear, pending a fresh, impartial inquiry into his grievances.

The petitioner, an advocate practicing in Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, alleged that he was being targeted due to his professional role in representing clients in cases involving the Khanna Police and the CIA Staff, Khanna. According to his petition, the conflict escalated when he sought to represent individuals who alleged that their relatives had been subjected to illegal detention and arbitrary arrest. The petitioner asserted that his home had been under surveillance by suspicious vehicles, specifically identifying a white Mahindra Scorpio that allegedly followed him to the court complex and hovered near his residence while occupied by masked individuals carrying firearms.

Justice Manisha Batra, presiding over the case, emphasized the foundational necessity of shielding legal professionals from external pressures that might impede their duties. The court observed, “An Advocate is an officer of the Court and he must be able to discharge his professional duties without fear. It would, therefore, be appropriate to provide security to the petitioner as an interim measure, till his representation is inquired into afresh and his threat perception is assessed again.” This judicial intervention highlights the constitutional duty of the state to uphold the right to life and liberty under Article 21, particularly when a citizen—especially an officer of the court—brings forward documented apprehensions regarding their safety.

The procedural history of the case revealed significant shortcomings in the initial response by local law enforcement. The petitioner had previously submitted a formal representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab, and other senior officials, detailing the incidents of stalking and the potential use of forged registration plates on the vehicles involved. However, the subsequent inquiries conducted by the district police were found to be internally conflicted. The court noted that the reports provided by the Khanna Police were primarily based on internal assessments by the very officers against whom the petitioner had raised complaints. This inherent conflict of interest rendered the inquiry unsatisfactory, as it failed to impartially examine the photographic and electronic evidence offered by the petitioner.

The court further remarked that “an inquiry should not only be fair but should also appear to be fair,” noting that the reliance on reports from the accused department failed to inspire necessary public confidence. Consequently, the court rejected the notion that the allegations were based solely on suspicion without merit. Instead, it highlighted the failure of the authorities to verify basic information, such as the ownership of the registration numbers cited by the petitioner or the critical analysis of available CCTV footage that the petitioner had explicitly offered to surrender for official examination.

In addition to the order for armed security, the court issued specific operational directives to rectify the gaps in the previous investigation. The Director General of Police, Punjab, has been ordered to entrust the fresh inquiry to an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, specifically one who is posted outside the Khanna police jurisdiction and has no affiliation with the CIA Staff, Khanna. This investigator is mandated to conduct a comprehensive verification of the suspect vehicles and gather all relevant electronic evidence, including route-specific CCTV footage. The inquiry is expected to conclude within six weeks.

The court also addressed the broader legal framework regarding the registration of First Information Reports. While declining the petitioner’s request to form a Special Investigation Team at this juncture, the court upheld the principles established by the Supreme Court of India, advising that such extraordinary measures are reserved for exceptional circumstances. However, the court explicitly noted that should the upcoming independent inquiry uncover the commission of a cognizable offence, the police are bound to proceed in accordance with established law, referencing the landmark mandates regarding mandatory FIR registration.

As an immediate consequence of the judgment, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, is required to maintain the deployment of at least one armed police official with the petitioner until a final determination on the threat level is reached. The court further ordered that the patrolling around the petitioner's residence must continue. Once the fresh inquiry is completed, the authorities are tasked with conducting a secondary, objective assessment of the petitioner’s threat perception, providing him with an opportunity to be heard, and issuing a speaking order regarding the ongoing necessity of security measures.

The court clarified that these observations are strictly confined to the scope of the protection plea and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the pending criminal cases against the Khanna police officers. By balancing the state's discretion in threat assessment with the imperative of protecting the judicial process, the court’s decision establishes a crucial precedent for ensuring that advocates can carry out their professional functions in an environment free from intimidation and surveillance. The matter now rests with the newly appointed supervising officer, whose findings will dictate the long-term status of the petitioner’s security arrangements.