Palampur Man Challenges Himachal Police's Rs 68.6 Lakh Security Recovery Demand, Alleges Unlawful Withdrawal of Protection

A Palampur resident has challenged a ₹68.60 lakh recovery notice issued by the Himachal Pradesh Police for expenses incurred on security provided to him and his family, arguing that the protection was granted under directions of the courts and that the demand is legally unsustainable. Nishant Sharma said on Wednesday that the police action concerning his security and the recovery of expenses was arbitrary and contrary to earlier court directions. The police, however, have maintained that the latest notice relates to reimbursement of expenditure already incurred on his security and is separate from any decision regarding the withdrawal of his protection.

The notice issued by the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) asks Sharma to deposit ₹68,60,502 within 15 days. The demand follows a decision taken by the Joint Security Review Committee (JSRC) at its August 5, 2026 meeting, chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Himachal Pradesh. According to police records, security was provided to Sharma and his family from November 16, 2023, to September 16, 2025. During this period, ₹37,96,589 was spent by Kangra Police, while ₹30,63,913 was incurred by the 2nd India Reserve Battalion, Sakoh, Dharamshala. The combined expenditure amounts to ₹68,60,502.

The police have directed that the money be deposited under the government receipt head "0055-Police-00-101-Police Supplied to other parties-02-Recovery from others." The notice says the recovery follows the JSRC's decision that expenditure incurred by the state government on Sharma and his family's security should be recovered. Sharma has strongly disputed the move, describing it as "illegal, arbitrary and contemptuous." He argues that the security was not provided merely as an administrative benefit but pursuant to directions issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court during proceedings initiated after he complained of threats to his life and the safety of his family.

The matter originated in October-November 2023, when Sharma approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court after alleging threats. The court initiated criminal writ proceedings based on an email sent by him to the then Chief Justice. On November 16, 2023, the court directed the authorities to provide him with the necessary protection. Senior advocate Neeraj Gupta was appointed as amicus curiae, while the Advocate General assured the court that an FIR would be registered on Sharma's complaint. An FIR was subsequently registered at McLeodganj Police Station on the same day.

The case later involved a series of judicial orders concerning both the investigation and Sharma's security arrangements. In January 2024, the High Court directed the formation of an Inspector General-level Special Investigation Team and ordered that the Kangra police leadership should not be involved in the investigation. The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court. In an order dated April 19, 2024, the apex court directed that monitoring of Sharma's security should remain exclusively with the Additional Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, and that the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, should have no role in providing his security.

The High Court continued to monitor aspects of the case and, in its September 23, 2024 judgment, ordered further investigation into allegations made by Sharma. It also directed that Sections 384 to 387 of the IPC be added to FIR No. 55/2023 and investigated by the SIT. The security arrangement was later discontinued following a Supreme Court order dated September 16, 2025. The apex court noted that the SIT had completed its investigation and submitted reports before the jurisdictional magistrates. It directed that the security provided to Sharma "shall now be discontinued", while allowing him to approach the High Court if he continued to have a genuine apprehension about his safety or that of his family.

The High Court's July 8, 2026 judgment also took note of this subsequent Supreme Court direction. Sharma is now questioning why expenses incurred during the period when the security was provided under judicial directions should be recovered from him. He has argued that compliance with a court order is a constitutional obligation rather than a discretionary service extended by the executive.

The dispute also comes against the backdrop of Sharma's earlier allegations concerning threats linked to a business dispute. His complaints had named several influential individuals, including former Himachal Pradesh DGP Sanjay Kundu. Those allegations were contested by the individuals named. The investigation into the allegations was eventually completed by the SIT. The High Court's July 8, 2026 judgment recorded that investigators had examined CCTV footage, witnesses, forensic evidence and telecommunications data before submitting cancellation reports in the two FIRs.

The High Court found no apparent irregularity in the SIT's investigation but left it to the jurisdictional magistrates to examine the cancellation reports and take any further action permitted under law, including ordering further investigation or taking cognisance where appropriate. The suo motu proceedings were subsequently disposed of while preserving the parties' legal remedies.

The police have emphasised that the August 26 notice is specifically a recovery demand for security expenditure already incurred and does not itself amount to a fresh decision to withdraw Sharma's security. The department has also stated that the amount was spent from public funds and that the competent security review committee decided it should be recovered.

Sharma, on the other hand, maintains that the recovery action must be examined in the context of the court orders that led to his security being provided in the first place. He has said he will submit a detailed representation along with relevant court orders, police communications and other documents before the appropriate authority and pursue the legal remedies available to him. The issue now centres on whether the state can recover the ₹68.60 lakh spent on Sharma's security during a period in which the protection was provided following judicial directions. The police and Sharma have taken opposing positions, and the ultimate validity of the recovery demand will depend on the competent authority or court examining the matter.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from ANI.