A Palampur resident challenged a ₹68.60 lakh recovery notice from HP Police for security provided to him and his family, calling it illegal as the protection was court-ordered. The police seek to recover the costs based on a JSRC decision.
A Palampur resident has challenged a ₹68.60 lakh recovery notice issued by the Himachal Pradesh Police for security provided to him and his family, arguing that the protection was extended under court directions and that the recovery action is illegal and arbitrary.
Nishant Sharma, in a statement issued on Wednesday, alleged that the Himachal Pradesh Police's move concerning withdrawal of his security and recovery of expenses is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to earlier court directions, while the police have issued a separate notice seeking ₹68,60,502 from him as reimbursement of expenditure incurred on his security, citing a decision of the Joint Security Review Committee (JSRC) taken on August 5, 2026.
Police Cite JSRC Decision for Recovery
Sharma, in a statement issued on Wednesday, said he had received communication from the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) proposing withdrawal of his security and seeking recovery of the expenditure incurred on his protection. The police, however, have clarified through the DGP's August 26 notice that the present demand is for recovery/reimbursement of expenditure on security already provided and does not itself constitute a fresh order withdrawing Sharma's security.
According to the police notice, the amount of ₹68,60,502 is to be deposited within 15 days under the government receipt head "0055-Police-00-101-Police Supplied to other parties-02-Recovery from others." The police said the security was provided to Sharma and his family from November 16, 2023 to September 16, 2025, with personnel from different police units deployed during the period.
The matter concerning the expenditure was considered by the Joint Security Review Committee (JSRC) at its meeting on August 5, 2026, held under the chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Himachal Pradesh. According to the DGP's communication, the committee decided that the expenditure incurred by the State Government and Himachal Pradesh Police on the security provided to Sharma and his family should be recovered from him. The notice quotes the JSRC decision as stating: "It was agreed to recover the expenditure incurred by the State Government on the police security provided to Shri Nishant Sharma and his family."
The expenditure details obtained by the police through the Additional Director General of Police, State CID, show ₹37,96,589 incurred by Kangra Police and ₹30,63,913 by the 2nd India Reserve Battalion, Sakoh, Dharamshala, taking the total to ₹68,60,502.
Sharma Argues Protection Was Court-Ordered
Sharma, meanwhile, has termed the move "illegal, arbitrary and contemptuous", maintaining that his protection was not merely an administrative facility but was provided pursuant to directions of the Himachal Pradesh High Court during suo motu proceedings initiated on the basis of his complaint.
Legal History of the Security Cover
The matter dates back to October-November 2023, when Sharma approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court alleging threats to his life and that of his family. The High Court registered criminal writ proceedings on the basis of an email sent by Sharma to the then Chief Justice. In its interim order of November 16, 2023, the High Court directed the authorities to provide requisite protection to Sharma. The court also appointed senior advocate Neeraj Gupta as amicus curiae and took an assurance from the Advocate General that an FIR would be registered on Sharma's complaint. The FIR was subsequently registered at McLeodganj Police Station on November 16, 2023.
The High Court proceedings subsequently led to a series of orders concerning both the investigation and security arrangements. In January 2024, the High Court ordered the constitution of an Inspector General-level Special Investigation Team (SIT) and directed that the Kangra police leadership should not handle the investigation. The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court. On April 19, 2024, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the matter, specifically addressed Sharma's apprehension regarding the manner in which his security was being monitored. The apex court directed that monitoring of his security arrangements would remain exclusively with the Additional Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, and that the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, would have no role in providing his security. The High Court also recorded in its September 23, 2024 judgment that an interim direction in the proceedings was to continue until further orders. At that stage, the court directed further investigation into allegations contained in Sharma's complaint and ordered that Sections 384 to 387 of the IPC be added to FIR No. 55/2023 and investigated by the SIT.
Supreme Court Orders Discontinuation of Security
However, the subsequent legal position concerning the security cover changed materially. The Supreme Court, in its September 16, 2025 order, noted that the SIT had completed its investigation and that separate reports had been filed before the jurisdictional magistrates. It directed that the reports be placed before the High Court and ordered that the security provided to Sharma "shall now be discontinued", while leaving him free to approach the High Court if he had a genuine apprehension regarding the safety of himself or his family. The July 8, 2026 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court also records this subsequent Supreme Court direction.
Against this background, Sharma has questioned the legal basis of the recovery demand, arguing that the security provided to him arose from judicial proceedings and directions issued by the constitutional courts. "Compliance with a judicial direction is a constitutional obligation, not a discretionary facility granted at the pleasure of an executive authority," Sharma said in his statement. He has also questioned what he described as the absence of a fresh, reasoned assessment explaining the change in threat perception and the basis on which the expenditure is now being sought from him.
SIT Investigation and Final Court Orders
Sharma has alleged that he and his family faced threats in connection with a long-running business dispute and had earlier named several influential persons, including former Himachal Pradesh DGP Sanjay Kundu, in his complaints. The allegations were contested by the persons named. The judicial record shows that the original proceedings involved allegations of threats, extortion and intimidation, besides allegations concerning the conduct of the police investigation. The High Court's 2026 judgment records that the SIT subsequently examined CCTV footage, witnesses, forensic material and telecommunications data and submitted cancellation reports in the two FIRs. In its July 8, 2026 judgment, the High Court said it found no infirmity in the manner in which the SIT had conducted the investigation, while leaving it open to the jurisdictional magistrates to consider the cancellation reports and, if warranted, order further investigation or take cognizance in accordance with law. The High Court accordingly disposed of the suo motu proceedings while preserving the parties' remedies before the competent courts.
Current Standoff
Meanwhile, the police documents attached to the present recovery notice specifically record the security period as November 16, 2023 to September 16, 2025. The police have maintained that the present DGP communication is primarily a recovery/reimbursement notice for expenditure already incurred, rather than a fresh order for withdrawal of security. The DGP notice states that the expenditure incurred on deployment of police personnel constituted public money and that the competent JSRC had decided that the amount should be recovered from Sharma. The notice further states that the recovery demand is being issued "without prejudice to any other right, remedy, claim or action available to the State Government and HP Police under the applicable law."
Sharma, however, maintains that the circumstances surrounding the security provided to him, its subsequent discontinuation and the recovery demand require judicial scrutiny. He said he would submit a comprehensive representation before the competent authority and place the relevant court orders, police communications and other records before the appropriate constitutional forum. He has also said he intends to place on record his concerns regarding the conduct of investigating officers and pursue all remedies available to him under law. The police position, as reflected in the August 26 notice, is that ₹68.60 lakh was spent from public funds on security provided to Sharma and his family and that the amount is being sought pursuant to the JSRC's August 5 decision. The dispute now centres on Sharma's allegation that the recovery action is contrary to the judicial history of his protection and the police's position that the amount represents recoverable public expenditure incurred during the period of security deployment. Any final determination on the validity of the recovery demand will rest with the competent authority or judicial forum. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)