Political Crosshairs: Majithia Unfazed Amid Security Withdrawal and Investigation Reshuffles

No doubt, no individual is entitled to retain a particular level of security cover as a matter of right, and such arrangements must be subject to periodic and objective review based on evolving threat

Majithia Z+ Security Withdrawn

In a series of developments that have intensified political tensions in Punjab, senior Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Bikram Singh Majithia finds himself at the centre of what his party describes as a coordinated campaign of political vendetta. The Punjab government's recent decisions to withdraw his Z+ security cover and reconstitute the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing drug charges against him for an unprecedented fifth time have sparked fierce debate about the intersection of law enforcement and political manoeuvring in the state.

Security Stripped Amid Heightened Threat Perceptions

The sudden withdrawal of Bikram Singh Majithia's Z+ security cover on 29 March 2025 has drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum. The high-level security, which included approximately 35 personnel, was abruptly removed, leaving the former minister with just one police personnel who had been attached to him for an extended period. What has particularly fuelled political speculation is that the orders for withdrawal were not only issued but also vigorously followed up for immediate implementation over the weekend—a period typically associated with bureaucratic inertia. This urgency reinforced public perception that Punjab’s police establishment may have received these directives from the very top of the political hierarchy, whether in Chandigarh or Delhi. Incidentally, Majithia himself spoke about the matter only yesterday, on 1 April, after the news had already leaked into the media and begun to circulate widely.

Reaction of Sukhbir Badal

Sukhbir Singh Badal, former Deputy Chief Minister and Majithia's brother-in-law, condemned the action in the strongest terms, calling it evidence of "dangerous and deadly designs of the AAP government against the SAD leadership". Badal explicitly linked this decision to what he termed a "massive witch-hunt" against Majithia and drew a concerning parallel to his own experience just months earlier when he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt at the Golden Temple in December 2024.

"Withdrawal of security to Majithia has to be seen with the government's complicity in the failed lethal attempt on my life—an attempt foiled only with divine intervention of Guru Sahiban," Badal stated on social media. He further alleged that the government had deliberately weakened the case against his would-be assassin, allowing the accused, Narain Singh Chaura, to secure bail easily.

Majithia himself responded with characteristic defiance, directly challenging Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann in a video posted to social media platform X. "When they failed in silencing my voice, they withdrew my security," Majithia claimed, adding more provocatively, "Get me shot, Bhagwant Mann. Only then will I fall silent".

Precedent and Political Warnings

The security withdrawal has evoked memories of the tragic case of singer Sidhu Moosewala, whose security was similarly reduced before he was murdered—a point raised by several political figures including BJP leader Sunil Jakhar. "Whether the security of Bikram Singh Majithia has been removed for political reasons is a matter of debate for another day, but I would like to underscore to Bhagwant Mann govt that personal whims, fancies and political vendetta must never dictate such rash decisions," Jakhar stated.

Adding another dimension to the controversy, estranged AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal has criticised the Punjab government for inconsistently applying security protocols—specifically pointing to the alleged provision of Z+ security to Bibhav Kumar, former aide to Arvind Kejriwal. Maliwal, who has accused Kumar of assaulting her, questioned the rationale behind such security allocation, asking, "What has this goon done to deserve Z-plus security?"

Security Protocols vs Political Perceptions: Assessing Punjab's Threat Matrix

The allocation of Z+ security in India operates under stringent protocols dictated by dynamic threat assessments conducted jointly by central intelligence agencies and state police forces. This highest civilian protection tier—comprising 36 personnel including CRPF commandos armed with submachine guns and advanced surveillance equipment—is reserved for individuals facing substantiated risks from terrorist organisations or targeted violence. The March-end withdrawal of Majithia’s Z+ cover must be contextualised against Punjab’s escalating security challenges, including 12 grenade attacks since November 2024, the reactivation of ISI-backed Khalistani sleeper cells, and the failed assassination of Sukhbir Singh Badal—events that collectively underscore the volatility of the state’s security landscape.

The ISI-Khalistan Nexus: A Renewed Security Doctrine

Recent months have seen concentrated attacks in Amritsar’s border regions, with the 4 December 2024 Gumtala police post blast initially dismissed as a “car radiator burst” before forensic analysis confirmed explosive residue. This was followed by the 16 January 2025 grenade attack at Jaintipur village targeting a liquor contractor’s residence—the tenth such incident in two months—where CCTV footage implicated Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) operatives. Equally alarming was the 4 December 2024 assassination attempt on Sukhbir Singh Badal at the Golden Temple by Narain Singh Chaura, a Khalistani militant with ties to 21 criminal cases dating to the 1980s insurgency. Punjab Police’s subsequent revelation of Chaura’s ISI connections exposed a broader pattern of cross-border orchestration, exemplified further by the 1 April 2025 blast at Patiala’s Badshahpur police post—the first in the district amid a spree of 10 attacks on security installations elsewhere in the state.

These incidents validate intelligence warnings about revived Khalistani networks exploiting Punjab’s porous borders. The shift in militant tactics—from targeting police infrastructure to religious sites like Amritsar’s Thakurdwara Mandir in March 2025—reflects a deliberate ISI strategy to incite communal unrest. Against this backdrop, security adjustments for figures like Bikram Majithia cannot be reduced to political theatre but must align with evolving risk profiles. While the AAP government will understandably face accusations of vendetta, the procedural rigour behind Z+ decisions—rooted in multi-agency evaluations of attack vectors, travel patterns, and actionable intelligence—demands analytical detachment from partisan narratives. The challenge lies in balancing legitimate security concerns with the perception of weaponised state machinery, a tension magnified by Punjab’s history of politically charged law enforcement, and the recent escalation in incidents targeting the police establishment.

Five SITs and Counting: A Case Study in Investigative Persistence

In a parallel development that has raised eyebrows in legal and political circles, the Punjab government has reconstituted the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating drug charges against Majithia for the fifth time in three years. On 1 April 2025, the Director of Bureau of Investigation announced that Assistant Inspector General (AIG) Varun Sharma would now head the investigation, replacing Deputy Inspector General Ropar Range HS Bhullar.

This change is particularly noteworthy as it comes just two weeks after Majithia was interrogated by the fourth SIT in Patiala for over six hours on 17–18 March 2025. During those sessions, SIT member Varun Sharma—who now heads the new team—claimed they had discovered "suspicious financial transactions" in firms linked to Majithia and his family, including international transfers and "abnormal rise in assets".

A Case with Complex History

The case against Majithia dates back to 20 December 2021, when the Congress-led government under Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi registered an FIR against him under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The FIR was based on a 2018 report by the anti-drug Special Task Force and was registered by the state Crime Branch at its Mohali police station.

Majithia spent nearly six months in Patiala jail before the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted him bail in August 2022. The court, while allowing his bail petition, observed:

“On the basis of the material placed before us as on date, we are of the view that the evidence against the petitioner is frail and not credible and so reasonable grounds exist to believe that petitioner is not guilty of ‘financing’ drug trafficking.”

Further, the judges concluded:

“We are satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him… and he is not likely to commit such offences while on bail. It will take time for the trial to start and culminate. So no fruitful purpose is going to be served even if the petitioner is kept in judicial custody for a further indefinite period.”

The Punjab Government has since been pursuing, unsuccessfully so far, a petition in the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of this bail.

On 24 March 2025, during a Supreme Court hearing on this petition, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar expressed exasperation at the State counsel's conduct, noting: "Your panel advocates in the Supreme Court are not appearing. This is everyday drama. State of Punjab means absent. We have recorded this in our orders". The Court granted the Advocate General ten days to file a fresh affidavit and ordered the matter to be listed after two weeks, while permitting the SIT to continue its investigation.

Implications of Recurring SIT Changes

Bikram Majithia has pointedly criticised the formation of yet another SIT, noting sarcastically, "With every new SIT, the rank of its chairman is lowered. They started by appointing a DGP-rank officer, and have now downgraded it to an AIG". He further suggested that Chief Minister should personally head the investigation, adding, "Mann is baffled and bewildered (with no outcome). I understand his predicament because I'm among the few who speak up against him despite the atmosphere of fear in the state".

The timing of this latest SIT reorganisation—coming after the Supreme Court hearing and amid claims of expanded financial investigations—has fuelled speculation about the government's motives and strategy. Critics argue that after four SITs have "drawn a blank," the formation of a fifth team reflects desperation rather than diligence.

Vocal Opposition in the Face of Mounting Pressure

Throughout these developments, Majithia has remained an outspoken critic of the Bhagwant Mann government. In a post on social media platform X on 1 April 2025, Majithia described the reconstitution of the SIT as evidence that the AAP government is looking for "pliable officers" to bring false charges against him.

Interpreting the rumoured, if not the imminent, leadership change as a sign of Chief Minister Mann's "clear frustration," Majithia sarcastically challenged Mann to take over as SIT chairman himself and appoint officers like "Vaibhav Kumar and Vijay Nair" as members to expedite presenting a chargesheet against him—references to controversial AAP-affiliated figures.

Majithia has consistently maintained that the entire investigation is politically motivated rather than based on substantive evidence. "It is clear that my case is a classic example of political vendetta. It has been four years since the FIR was registered, and three years to the formation of the SIT, but no challan has been submitted to the competent judicial court," he stated.

Beyond the Drug Case

The former Punjab Revenue Minister has positioned the changing SITs and security withdrawal as part of a broader pattern of political targeting designed to silence opposition voices in Punjab. He has repeatedly highlighted that the investigation against him began during the Congress government but has been pursued with particular vigour under the AAP administration.

Majithia has also been critical of other actions by the state government, including its handling of various policy matters. His criticisms, often delivered in idiomatic Punjabi that resonates with local audiences, have reportedly been a thorn in the side of the current administration.

Advocate General's Resignation Sparks Speculation

Earlier, on 30 March 2025, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh "Garry" tendered his resignation as Punjab's Advocate General, citing "personal reasons" and a desire to return to private practice. The resignation, handwritten and personally submitted, came just days ahead of a crucial Supreme Court hearing on the Punjab government's petition to cancel Bikram Singh Majithia's bail in the NDPS case. Gurminder Singh had been leading the state’s legal team in this high-profile matter, making the timing of his departure particularly noteworthy.

On 30 March 2025, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh "Garry" tendered his resignation as Punjab's Advocate General, citing "personal reasons" and a desire to return to private practice. The resignation, submitted in his own handwriting, came just days before a crucial Supreme Court hearing on the Punjab government's petition to cancel Bikram Singh Majithia's bail in the NDPS case. Gurminder Singh had been leading the state’s legal team in this high-profile matter, making the timing of his departure particularly significant.

Adding to the intrigue, his resignation closely preceded a series of the aforesaid administrative changes, including the reconstitution of the SIT investigating Majithia and the withdrawal of Majithia’s Z+ security. These developments have fuelled speculation about internal discord within the government’s investigative apparatus and the Advocate General's office. The abrupt replacement of the Chief Director of the Vigilance Bureau on 27 March 2025—barely a month and a half after the incumbent had taken charge—has added another layer to this narrative. Critics allege that these moves are part of a broader effort to build a case of “disproportionate assets” against Majithia under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite his tenure as a minister ending in February 2017.

Majithia himself has alleged that these actions reflect desperation on the part of the government to silence him after failing to gather credible evidence in the NDPS case. The timing and sequence of these administrative changes have led opposition leaders and legal analysts to question whether they are politically motivated or indicative of deeper issues within Punjab’s governance framework.

The resignation has triggered widespread conjecture about its implications for Punjab’s legal and political landscape, with many interpreting it as part of a broader narrative involving administrative reshuffles and politically charged investigations.

In Summary: Political Calculations and Unintended Consequences

The convergence of security withdrawal, investigative reshuffling, and vocal political opposition presents a complex picture of Punjab's political landscape. SAD spokesperson Daljit Singh Cheema has drawn a direct line between these events, warning that "attempts were being made to silence the political opponents by resorting to such tactics".

Legal experts note that the Supreme Court's recent comments and the timing of these administrative changes, especially the change in the composition of the SIT, might influence judicial perspectives when the bail cancellation matter is heard. The apparent frustration expressed by the Supreme Court justices regarding the state's legal representation suggests scrutiny of the government's handling of the case may intensify.

As Punjab navigates these political tensions, the case of Bikram Singh Majithia serves as a focal point for broader questions about the relationship between political opposition and law enforcement in the state. Love him or hate him, you cannot ignore him—and it doesn’t look like he would quieten down, notwithstanding the multi-pronged campaign against him. No doubt, no individual is entitled to retain a particular level of security cover as a matter of right, and such arrangements must be subject to periodic and objective review based on evolving threat assessments. Yet, it is the manner and timing of the withdrawal—coming amidst multiple political flashpoints—that has raised questions about intent, reinforcing concerns that institutional frameworks may be selectively weaponised in politically sensitive contexts.