HP DGP asks businessman to foot ₹68.60 lakh security bill; raises question over who pays for VIP protection
Photo used for indicative purpose only.
Nishant Sharma was given police cover amid two-year-long legal battle involving former DGP Sanjay Kundu
Shimla, Aug 28
The Himachal Pradesh Police has asked Palampur-based businessman Nishant Kumar Sharma to reimburse Rs 68.60 lakh, the expenditure incurred by the State Government and the HP Police on deploying personnel for his security and that of his family since November 2023.
The demand has come in the backdrop of a nearly two-year-long legal battle in which Sharma’s security became a central issue and which also involved former Himachal Pradesh DGP Sanjay Kundu.
In a communication dated August 26, 2026, Director General of Police Ashok Tewari said police security had been provided to Sharma and his family with effect from November 16, 2023, with personnel drawn from different units of the State Police deployed from time to time. The decision to recover the expenditure was taken by the Joint Security Review Committee (JSRC) at its meeting on August 5, 2026, chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home).
The State CID obtained expenditure statements from the police units involved. The SP Kangra reported expenditure of ₹37,96,589, while the 2nd India Reserve Battalion, Sakoh, Dharamshala, reported another ₹30,63,913. The total presently quantified expenditure is therefore ₹68,60,502.
Sharma has been asked to deposit the amount within 15 days of receiving the notice under the government receipt head relating to recovery for police services supplied to other parties. The notice says the demand is without prejudice to any other right, remedy, claim or action available to the State Government and the HP Police.
Security became centre of prolonged litigation
The police protection dates back to the controversy that erupted after Sharma sent an email alleging threats to his life. The Himachal Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter and sought reports from the police authorities. A Special Investigation Team headed by then Shimla SP Sanjeev Gandhi investigated the allegations.
The litigation subsequently involved a sharp confrontation between Sharma and then DGP Sanjay Kundu. The High Court at one stage ordered the transfer of Kundu and then Kangra SP Shalini Agnihotri. Both officers subsequently obtained relief from the Supreme Court.
The dispute eventually produced cross criminal cases and cancellation reports before the competent Magistrates. In its July 8 judgment, subsequently corrected on July 15, the High Court declined to continue monitoring the dispute and left both sides free to pursue their remedies before the appropriate courts.
Who pays for security of protectees?
The latest order has also opened a wider question about the financial burden of security provided from the public exchequer to politicians, businessmen and other protected persons.
In Himachal Pradesh, a number of former legislators, political figures and businesspersons have received police protection at different points, while security cover is also provided by the Union Government to individuals assessed to face a particular level of threat. It is not clear from the present order whether similar reimbursement or recovery mechanisms are applied uniformly to other non-government protected persons.
The issue has broader resonance nationally. Questions over publicly funded security have recently surfaced in the political debate around RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s high-level security cover. Bhagwat’s security was upgraded to a Z-plus arrangement with the Advanced Security Liaison (ASL) protocol in 2024.
Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge has separately questioned the accountability surrounding security arrangements provided during RSS activities and asked why the Home Department should provide security without greater transparency regarding whom it is protecting.
An RTI-based effort to obtain details of expenditure on Bhagwat’s security was also denied by the Union Home Ministry’s VIP Security Unit, citing exemptions under the Right to Information Act.
A Businessman close to BJP or former chief minister Virbhadra Singh Yudh Chand Bains who is booked by state vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau in Rs 35 Crore loan NPA case was also got security from central government.
The Himachal case therefore brings the question into sharper focus: when security is provided to a private individual on the basis of threat perception, should the cost invariably be borne by taxpayers, or should there be a transparent and uniformly applicable mechanism for recovering such expenditure? The DGP’s latest communication provides one answer in Sharma’s case, but does not clarify whether the same principle is applied across the wider category of State-protected private individuals.
About the Author
