Journalist Challenges Police Summonses, Alleges Political Pressure After AAP MLAs’ Complaints
(By Syd Ali Taher Abedi)
9, June,2026-A journalist has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court contesting multiple police summonses issued after complaints by AAP MLAs, framing the matter as an assault on press freedom and an example of political influence over law enforcement.
Bhatinda based Journalist Rattan deep Singh Dhaliwal approached after multiple complaints were lodged against him.
Justice Rohit Kapoor today listedthe matter for hearing on Wednesday and said that the court would like to first hear the podcast before passing any order.
Dhaliwal in his petition sought quashing of proceedings initiated against him by the police on basis of complaints made by AAP MLAs
“The absurdity of this document is self-evident: it requires MLAs to merely fill in their name and constituency, while the body of the complaint is identical for every complainant and contains wildly exaggerated claims such as “because of this video there is hatred and unrest in the people of Punjab.” This claim is factually false and legally untenable, yet it became the basis for a state-wide police action against the Petitioner.”
The petition contends that the repeated notices triggered by allegations of defamation and related offenses amount to harassment designed to intimidate and silence reporting that holds public officeholders to account.
Senior Advocate R.S. Bains, for Mr. Dhaliwal, contended that the Aam Aadmi Party was pursuing a campaign of vendetta against his client and had even caused the suspension of his social media accounts.
“If you don’t even know it is cognizable offence how cab police provide assume jurisdiction you have no FIRs at all Bains said.
Advocate General Manenderjit Singh Bedi countered this statement and said that journalists are not above the law.
Advocate Loveneet Thakur and Sarabjot Singh Cheema also appeared for Dhaliwal
The filing foregrounds two linked concerns procedural irregularities in how the summonses were issued, and the chilling effect this pattern could have on investigative journalism.
According to the petitioner, notices were dispatched without adequate preliminary inquiry, relied on vague or identical narratives from complainants, and were pursued in rapid succession across separate police stations.
The result, the plea argues, is not the orderly administration of law but a scattershot strategy that multiplies legal burdens and drains the resources of a media professional seeking to defend legitimate reportage.
Beyond procedural objections, the petition takes aim at motive. It asserts that the complaints were filed after critical coverage of the complainant MLAs’ conduct, and that law-enforcement action rather than internal party discipline or counter speech has been weaponised to exact reputational and financial costs.
This raises a constitutional dimension: the balance between a citizen’s right to reputation and the press’s role in a democratic society.
The petitioner urges the court to scrutinise whether criminal processes are being used as a substitute for democratic contestation, thereby undermining the press’s watchdog function.
The legal relief sought is twofold interim protection from further coercive steps pending full hearing, and declaratory relief on the lawfulness of issuing repeated summonses in such circumstances.
The petitioner asks the court to direct police to follow procedural safeguards, to require complainants to establish prima facie case before invoking criminal process, and to guard against multiplication of proceedings where a singular grievance is being pursued across jurisdictions.
For the judiciary, the case presents familiar but pressing questions when does legitimate complaint morph into abuse of process, and what safeguards must courts impose to prevent the criminal law from becoming a tool for suppressing speech.
The outcome could set useful guidance for lower police authorities and political actors tempted to bypass public debate in favour of legal intimidation.
If the High Court accepts the petition for urgent consideration, the hearing could clarify procedural thresholds for police action in complaints against journalists and reaffirm the constitutional limits on deploying criminal law where civil remedies and counter-speech might suffice.
