The Punjab and Haryana High Court has questioned the deployment of as many as 23 Punjab Police personnel in the security detail of Rajya Sabha MP and former India cricketer Harbhajan Singh.At the outset, Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that official records prima facie reflected sanction for only eight personnel and 15 police officials had apparently been unofficially attached.The observations came as Justice Bansal ordered a district-wise exercise in Moga — to begin with — to ascertain how many people were enjoying security cover and how many police personnel were officially and unofficially deployed with them.Making it clear that the issue went beyond an individual case, Justice Bansal directed the ADGP (Security) and the SSP, Moga, to place detailed affidavits before the court. At the same time, the Bench also directed the State to ensure that no physical harm was caused to the petitioners or their families.The development is significant as the matter, which began as a specific look into the MP’s security arrangements, has since expanded into a broader judicial scrutiny of the VIP security culture prevalent across the state.“It appears that there are two orders whereby eight police personnel were deputed in the security of petitioner. It, prima facie, shows that respondents have unofficially attached 15 police personnel at the cost of public exchequer,” the court observed.Expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the petitioner’s individual security arrangement, Justice Bansal asserted: “To avoid the aforesaid situation, this Court finds it appropriate to select Moga district to ascertain how many persons are having security cover and how many police officials are officially and unofficially attached to those persons.”The Bench adjourned the matter to May 20, while simultaneously putting the State machinery on notice against delay tactics. “It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted,” the court said.In his petition, the MP contended that the impugned order withdrawing his security cover was passed without any fresh threat assessment and without affording him notice or an opportunity of hearing.Harbhajan Singh added he was elected to the Rajya Sabha on April 10, 2022, from the Aam Aadmi Party and was residing in Jalandhar with his family.He submitted that a day prior to the withdrawal, Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha had announced that he, along with six other MPs, including the petitioner, had left the party. He alleged that his security was then withdrawn without any fresh report regarding threat perception.A tale of two security seekersOne petitioner — an MP — had 23 Punjab Police personnel around him. Another, despite surviving a firing incident allegedly linked to a gang, was left with just one ASI during daytime hours.The stark contrast emerged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court while Justice Jagmohan Bansal heard connected petitions on security cover and threat perception.In the connected matter, a government transport and labour contractor, who is also a Zila Parishad former Vice-Chairman, approached the High Court through counsel Armaan Saggar seeking protection for himself and his family after alleging threats from a gang.Calling it “the second round of litigation”, Saggar submitted the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court after two motorcycle-borne assailants allegedly opened fire towards him on November 1, 2025. Six empty cartridges were recovered from the spot and an FIR was registered the following day at Sultanpur Lodhi police station under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.Saggar further told the Bench that a person later “openly took responsibility for the incident”. She added that while some accused had been arrested, others were still absconding.Reference was also made to a November 19, 2025, press statement issued by the Punjab Director-General of Police regarding recovery of weapons and the arrest of an alleged “member of the extortion gang”.Despite this, the petitioner’s counsel argued that adequate protection was not provided. “Despite threat perception, he was assigned two ASIs. However, after one month, one ASI was withdrawn, and at present he has only one ASI, that too during daytime hours,” Saggar submitted before the court.