CHANDIGARH: In a development that has triggered sharp questions over press freedom and the security of journalists, the Y+ security cover of senior ABP journalist Jagwinder Patial has reportedly been withdrawn, barely hours after he published a high-profile report on Enforcement Directorate allegations concerning Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s Office.
The reported withdrawal has sparked concern among journalists and media organisations, particularly because of the unusually close timing between the publication of the investigation and the removal of Patial’s security cover.Patial, Executive Editor at ABP News and a senior journalist with more than two decades of experience, reported on September 2 that the ED had flagged alleged corruption involving intermediaries linked to the Punjab Chief Minister’s Office. ABP’s report said the ED material contained allegations involving payments, kickbacks and other benefits allegedly exchanged for government-related work.
The report specifically examined allegations surrounding Punjab CM’s OSD Rajbir Singh and others. The ED material, according to ABP, listed 11 instances involving alleged payments, kickbacks and other benefits.
According to posts circulating on social media on September 3, Patial’s Y+ security cover was withdrawn less than 24 hours after the publication of the ED-related report.The allegation has also been amplified by public figures and journalists on social media. A post by journalist Megha Prasad said that Patial’s Y+ security was withdrawn following his report, while another post described the development as a matter of concern.The Chandigarh Press Club has also reportedly condemned the withdrawal of Patial’s security, describing the timing as a matter of concern and raising questions about the action of the Punjab Police and the state government.
However, as of the publication of this report, no publicly available official order or detailed statement from the Punjab Police explaining the withdrawal has been located. Therefore, it cannot yet be established whether the decision was based on a fresh security assessment, an administrative review or another reason.The timing is what has made the development particularly sensitive.Patial’s report was not a routine political story. It concerned allegations emerging from an ED investigation into the functioning of the Punjab Chief Minister’s Office — a subject directly connected to the state’s political establishment.Any decision to withdraw security from the journalist immediately after such a report naturally raises questions about whether the two developments are connected.That connection, however, has not been officially established.
The crucial question now is whether the Punjab government or Punjab Police will explain when the decision to withdraw the Y+ cover was taken, who authorised it, what fresh threat assessment was conducted and whether the decision had been under consideration before Patial’s ED report was published.Patial is not a newcomer to high-risk journalism. ABP Network identifies him as its Executive Editor and says he has spent more than 24 years in journalism. He has reported from conflict zones and has broken several high-profile stories.He is also listed in the Press Information Bureau’s accreditation records as an ABP News correspondent.His previous reporting has included sensitive investigations and exclusive interviews involving Punjab’s criminal underworld. His reporting on the Lawrence Bishnoi interview controversy has also featured prominently in subsequent legal proceedings.
Significantly, on September 3, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the reinstatement of former DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu, who had been dismissed in connection with the recording of Lawrence Bishnoi’s interview while the gangster was in custody. The court ruling refers to Sandhu’s alleged contact with journalist Jagwinder Patial, although Sandhu denied facilitating the interview.The immediate issue is not simply whether a particular journalist has lost a particular category of security.The larger question is whether journalists investigating powerful political figures can continue to work without fear that their access to state protection could be altered because of the stories they publish.Security cover is ordinarily expected to be determined through a professional assessment of threat perception, not as a reward for favourable coverage or a penalty for critical reporting.That is why the Punjab government now faces an obvious test of transparency.If Patial’s security was withdrawn for legitimate security reasons, the government should explain the basis of the decision.