P&H High Court Orders Armed Security For Lawyer Alleging 'Surveillance' Ever Since He Filed Pleas Against Police

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab Police to provide an armed security official to an advocate from Amloh, who alleged that an SUV with dark windows and a registration plate that did not belong to it followed him and kept watch on his home, and that this happened after he filed petitions against Khanna Police officials on behalf of his clients.

Justice Manisha Batra held that threat assessment is primarily for the police. The Court added that the State has a duty under Article 21 to protect a citizen who comes to it with such an apprehension.

It 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.”

The petitioner has practised as an advocate at Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, since 2009. He represents clients who have filed several petitions in the High Court alleging misconduct by officials of the Khanna Police and CIA Staff, Khanna. According to those clients, one of them was picked up at night in March 2026 by unknown persons who came in a white Mahindra Scorpio, and was later shown as arrested in an FIR.

The petitioner alleged that on July 26, 2026, a white Scorpio with dark window films followed him from his home to the Amloh court complex and then turned back. He said the same vehicle was later seen parked near his house and was captured on his CCTV cameras. His family photographed it, and he alleged that four men with covered faces were sitting inside, one of whom appeared to be carrying a firearm.

An online search of the registration number showed that it was registered to a Mercedes-Benz car. Comparing photographs, the petitioner believed it was the same Scorpio linked to the earlier incident involving his client, now carrying a different plate. He made a representation to the DGP the same day and also called the 112 helpline, but said no action followed.

The Khanna Police replied that, according to reports from all its Station House Officers and the Incharge of CIA Staff, Khanna, no case was pending against the petitioner and no police team had followed him. It also said that neither vehicle belonged to the CIA Staff. Since the matter was under inquiry in Fatehgarh Sahib, the application was consigned to the record room.

The Fatehgarh Sahib SSP replied that the SHO had visited the spot and found no such vehicle, and that the district's Security Assessment Committee had found no threat because the petitioner had received no direct threat. Phone numbers of the police control room had been given to him, and patrolling near his house had been ordered. For the vehicle and the CCTV footage, he was advised to approach the Khanna Police.

Representation 'Remained Unattended'

The Court declined to constitute a Special Investigation Team. Relying on State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, it said such a direction is not to be issued “as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled allegations against the local police.”

It noted that the link between the two vehicles was based on the petitioner's belief from comparing photographs, and that the online search was from a private app. It also declined to direct registration of an FIR, relying on Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP, and left the petitioner free to approach the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.

The Court, however, found the handling of the representation unsatisfactory, for the following reasons, Registration number not checked. The use of the registration number on a Scorpio “could have been verified easily from the record of the registering authority”, but neither reply showed that this had been done.

It noted that the petitioner had offered his CCTV recordings and photographs, but there was nothing to show they were collected or examined.

The Khanna Police's reply was based on the report of the Incharge, CIA Staff, Khanna, who is himself a respondent and against whose staff the complaint was made.

Each district pointed to the other, Fatehgarh Sahib referred the petitioner to Khanna on the vehicle and the footage, while Khanna closed his application because Fatehgarh Sahib was inquiring.

The Court concluded that “the material part of the representation has thus remained unattended.”

It added, “It is well settled that an inquiry should not only be fair but should also appear to be fair. A person cannot be expected to have faith in an inquiry which rests on the report of the very officer against whose staff he has complained.”

On security, the Court noted the following, the petitioner was conducting cases against police officials of an adjoining district; He had called the 112 helpline on the day of the incident, which the police admitted.

The Court found that the Security Assessment Committee had formed its view without verifying the registration number or examining.

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ferry Sofat, Addl. A.G., Punjab.