The Perils of Politicized Policing and Security Breaches in Indian Democracy

The withdrawal of security assigned to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Punjab Police, under instructions from the Election Commission and Delhi Police, is undoubtedly troubling.

Who needs political opponents when the state itself is out to get you? Arvind Kejriwal’s security withdrawal feels less like an administrative decision and more like a setup for a tragic political comedy.

It raises serious questions about the misuse of institutional machinery, the erosion of democratic safeguards, and the disregard for legal principles surrounding the right to life and security.

This decision, coinciding with ongoing political campaigns and reports of violent attacks on Kejriwal, is not just a logistical matter; it is a political statement that exposes the underbelly of India’s governance system. The implications extend far beyond one individual’s safety, striking at the heart of democratic integrity and the rule of law in India.

Punjab Director General of Police (DGP) Gaurav Yadav has acknowledged the persistent security threats to Kejriwal, yet the withdrawal of his Punjab Police security comes at a time when these threats are most heightened.

The timing is suspicious, especially since Kejriwal’s car was allegedly attacked during a public meeting in Hari Nagar, and concerns about “goons with sticks and rods” disrupting his campaign have been raised by AAP leaders like Sanjay Singh.

The Punjab Police’s assurance of continued collaboration with the Delhi Police to ensure Kejriwal’s safety rings hollow. Delhi Police, functioning under the Union Home Ministry, has already faced accusations of being weaponized by the central government to stifle opposition voices.

The removal of Kejriwal’s security, particularly when he was at a public meeting, demonstrates not just negligence but a calculated attempt to intimidate a political rival.

At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental constitutional principle: the right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Security for political leaders, especially those facing documented threats, is not a privilege but a duty of the state.

Any decision to alter or withdraw security must be grounded in objective assessments of threat perception and national interest, not political convenience.

The Election Commission, if indeed involved in the decision, must answer critical legal questions. The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) empowers the Commission to ensure free and fair elections, but it does not supersede constitutional protections.

On what legal basis was security withdrawn, and why was this decision implemented without ensuring alternative, adequate measures? The Commission’s silence on repeated attacks against Kejriwal undermines its credibility and raises concerns about selective enforcement of rules.

Furthermore, the actions of the Delhi Police, directly controlled by the Union Home Ministry, warrant scrutiny. Kejriwal’s allegation that Home Minister Amit Shah is misusing the police as a “personal army” of the BJP cannot be dismissed as mere political rhetoric.

It reflects a larger pattern of the central government’s disregard for federalism and the autonomy of state institutions, particularly in opposition-ruled states like Punjab and Delhi.

The withdrawal of Kejriwal’s security must be viewed within the broader context of the central government’s systematic weaponization of state institutions to target political opponents.

From the selective use of central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to the apparent manipulation of the Delhi Police, the BJP-led central government has increasingly demonstrated its willingness to bend democratic norms.

This incident also exposes the precarious position of non-BJP state governments, whose authority is often undermined by the central government. The Punjab Police, despite its acknowledgment of threats to Kejriwal, has seemingly been forced to comply with directives from the Election Commission and Delhi Police. Such overreach not only erodes the federal structure but also compromises the safety of public figures.

The Election Commission’s inaction in the face of repeated attacks on Kejriwal raises troubling questions about its neutrality and effectiveness. While the Commission is tasked with ensuring free and fair elections, its silence on political violence and security breaches undermines public trust.

Political campaigns are a cornerstone of democratic participation, and leaders must be able to engage with citizens without fear of violence. By failing to act against those who disrupted Kejriwal’s rallies or allegedly infiltrated his gatherings to incite violence, the Election Commission has abdicated its responsibility.

The withdrawal of Kejriwal’s security fits into a larger pattern of fear and intimidation that has become characteristic of Indian politics. Leaders who challenge the ruling establishment face not only institutional harassment but also physical threats. The central government’s message is clear: *dissent will be met with retribution.*

Such tactics are not just morally reprehensible; they are politically counterproductive. Attempts to silence opposition leaders like Kejriwal only strengthen their narrative as champions of the people, fighting against an oppressive regime. Moreover, these actions alienate ordinary citizens, who see their own rights and freedoms eroded in the process.

The withdrawal of Kejriwal’s security sets a dangerous precedent for Indian democracy. If leaders of his stature and visibility can be left vulnerable to attacks, what does it mean for lesser-known activists, journalists, and dissenters?

The erosion of security for political figures is part of a broader assault on the safety of all those who dare to challenge the status quo.

This incident also highlights the urgent need for reforms in the allocation and withdrawal of security for public figures. The process must be transparent, objective, and insulated from political interference. A mechanism for independent review of security decisions, involving retired judges and security experts, could help restore public trust.

The central government must recognize that its heavy-handed tactics are not just an assault on opposition leaders but also an attack on the democratic fabric of India.

The right to dissent, campaign, and engage with citizens is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Any attempt to curtail these rights, whether through institutional overreach or physical intimidation, must be resisted.

The Election Commission, too, must rise to the occasion and demonstrate its commitment to fairness and neutrality. It must take immediate action to address the threats faced by Kejriwal and other political leaders, ensuring that security decisions are guided by law and not politics.

Finally, citizens must hold the government accountable for its actions. The withdrawal of Kejriwal’s security is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of democratic backsliding. Public outcry and collective action are essential to safeguard the rights and freedoms that define India’s democracy.

The withdrawal of Arvind Kejriwal’s security by the Punjab Police, under questionable circumstances, is a grim reminder of the central government’s growing disregard for democratic norms and constitutional rights. It exposes the fragility of India’s federal structure and the politicization of institutions meant to serve the people.

As threats to political leaders escalate, the question is not just about the safety of one individual but about the survival of democracy itself. Will India continue down the path of institutional decay and authoritarian overreach, or will citizens and institutions rise to defend the values enshrined in the Constitution? The answer lies in our collective response to moments like these.