The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Thursday, July 2 2026, dismissed a petition filed by Rattandeep Singh Dhaliwal seeking stay of proceedings in various complaints lodged against him by Aam Aadmi Party legislators. The bench comprising Justice Aman Chaudhary heard the matter after the petitioner alleged that the police inquiries and summonses issued following his May 2026 podcast constituted harassment and warranted judicial intervention.
According to the record, on May 21 2026 Dhaliwal, who runs the YouTube channels “Rattandeep Singh Dhaliwal” and “Talk with Rattan”, aired a podcast in which he stated that approximately thirty‑two sitting MLAs of the Punjab Legislative Assembly might not be nominated as party candidates for the upcoming 2027 assembly elections. Subsequent to the broadcast, several MLAs filed police complaints against him. Consequently, notices were issued by police units of different districts in Punjab, directing the petitioner to appear for inquiry.
During the hearing Justice Aman Chaudhary questioned the petitioner’s professional standing, asking “What kind of journalist are you?” Counsel for Dhaliwal responded that the petitioner enjoys a substantial following on YouTube. The Court then remarked, “Tell me your qualification. Nowadays everybody has followers…it is easy to get followers.” The bench further inquired about the petitioner’s source of income, to which Dhaliwal replied that his earnings derive from YouTube and that he holds a journalism qualification.
The Court observed that once the impugned content had been published and the concerned MLAs hailed from different constituencies, the filing of complaints was a predictable outcome. It added that if the police refrained from acting on such complaints, they would be derelict in their duty. Consequently, the Court advised the petitioner to cooperate with the inquiry, stating that participation would be in his own interest.
Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that no statutory provision empowers the police to conduct an inquiry prior to the registration of a First Information Report. It was further submitted that more than thirty notices had been served on Dhaliwal, requiring him to appear at various locations, thereby rendering compliance practically impossible. The argument was that the cumulative effect of these notices amounted to harassment and justified protective relief from coercive police action.
In rebuttal, the Advocate General for the State of Punjab, Maninderjit Singh Bedi, submitted that granting blanket protection at this nascent stage would be contrary to law, particularly when the petitioner is merely being called upon to present his version during the inquiry. The Advocate General emphasized that there was no occasion for the petitioner to approach the Court at this juncture and that the appropriate remedy lay in making a representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab.
After considering the submissions, Justice Aman Chaudhary refused to grant any interim relief. The Court expressly stated that Dhaliwal may move an appropriate representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab, if he wishes to raise grievances concerning the conduct of the inquiry. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
The case underscores the tension between freedom of expression and the investigative powers of the police, highlighting the Court’s reluctance to intervene when statutory remedies remain available and the inquiry process is still at a preliminary stage.