Sandeep Pathak moves HC, seeks details of Punjab Police FIRs, protections from arrest

In his petition, filed through advocates Arjun Sheoran, Tejasvi Sheokhand, Pathak claimed that after he joined the BJP, he came to know through “media reports, informal channels and word-of-mouth communications” that the Punjab Police had registered two FIRs against him in different districts for unspecified cognisable offences.

He submitted that despite “diligent efforts and inquiries”, he was kept “entirely in the dark” about the FIR numbers, dates of registration, police stations concerned, offences invoked and the contents of allegations. It further alleges that the FIRs were not uploaded on the Punjab Police website despite Supreme Court directions mandating online disclosure of FIRs, except in sensitive cases.

Calling the alleged action “politically motivated”, the petition has contended that the registration of FIRs immediately after his change of political affiliation amounted to “political vendetta” and abuse of criminal law. It has further alleged that the non-disclosure of the FIRs was a “calculated stratagem” to deny him an opportunity to seek anticipatory bail or other legal remedies before any arrest.

The plea has sought directions to the Punjab Police to disclose details of all FIRs or criminal proceedings, if any, initiated against him after his decision to join the BJP. It has also sought interim protection against arrest during the pendency of the petition.

Gupta challenges Punjab Police security withdrawal

Rajya Sabha MP and Trident Group’s chairman emeritus Rajinder Gupta moved the high court challenging the Punjab government’s decision to withdraw his security cover. He is the second MP, after Harbhajan Singh, to have challenged the withdrawal of security cover provided to him by the Punjab Police after they, along with five other Rajya Sabha members, quit AAP and joined the BJP.

In his petition, Gupta has sought directions to the Punjab Police to immediately restore the security arrangements earlier provided to him.

Gupta submitted that he had been provided security by the Punjab Police for a long time on the basis of threat perception assessments and not due to any political considerations. However, he alleged that soon after distancing himself from the AAP and joining the BJP, the Punjab government withdrew his security.

He has submitted that a change in political affiliation does not automatically eliminate security threats. Gupta has contended that the threat perception against him continues to exist as before, but instead of conducting an objective security review, the state government acted for political reasons. He has further submitted that matters concerning personal security cannot be subjected to political vendetta and that such action runs contrary to democratic values and the rule of law.

In Harbhajan’s case, the court had issued notices to Centre and Punjab government for May 12, the next date of hearing, seeking a detailed affidavit explaining the threat perception assessment that led to the abrupt withdrawal of his security cover.

The Punjab government had defended the withdrawal as part of a routine security review based on updated threat perception, but the court asked it to place its stand on record through a comprehensive affidavit.