The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stepped in to ensure the safety of cricketer-turned-politician and Rajya Sabha MP Harbhajan Singh. On Thursday, April 30, 2026, Justice Jagmohan Bansal issued a direct order to the Punjab government to ensure that "no physical injury" is caused to the MP or his family members while they are within the state.

The court's intervention follows a petition filed by Harbhajan Singh alleging that the state police withdrew his security cover in a "vindictive manner." The move reportedly occurred shortly after Singh, along with six other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha MPs, defected to join the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Singh’s plea contends that the withdrawal was carried out without any fresh or objective assessment of his threat perception.

The situation escalated when a protest was held by AAP workers outside Singh’s residence in Jalandhar following the security withdrawal. In his petition, Singh alleged that his home was "attacked by mobsters" while the police remained "mute spectators." He argued that leaving his family completely vulnerable by removing every single police personnel was an act of political retribution by the current regime.

Justice Bansal, while issuing notice to the State of Punjab, emphasized the immediate need for protection. The Court has mandated that the respondent (the state government) must guarantee the safety of the petitioner and his family until the next hearing.

The legal arguments highlight a recurring theme in state politics: the use of security cover as a political tool. Singh's legal team argued that security should be based strictly on threat levels rather than political affiliation. By withdrawing the entire cover simultaneously with a political shift, the state has allegedly failed in its duty to protect a sitting Member of Parliament.

The High Court has listed the matter for a detailed hearing on May 12, 2026. In the meantime, the Punjab government is under a judicial mandate to prevent any harm to the Singh family.

This case serves as a significant reminder of the judiciary's role in overseeing executive decisions that may be perceived as partisan. For Harbhajan Singh, the order provides a necessary layer of protection during a period of high political friction. For the state government, it is a call to demonstrate that administrative actions, particularly those concerning the safety of public figures, are governed by law rather than political convenience.