New Delhi [India]: The Delhi High Court has disposed of a petition filed by Rajan Singh, a transgender candidate representing the Aam Janata Party from the Kalkaji assembly constituency, who sought police protection citing threats to his life. The decision followed an assessment report filed by the Delhi Police, which stated that the threat perception was not genuine.
Justice Vikas Mahajan reviewed the status report and the submissions of the Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) for Delhi Police before concluding that no further orders were necessary.
The Delhi Police, in its report, stated that an inquiry conducted by the Special Cell found no credible threat to Singh. It further assured that security arrangements would be made during Singh’s election programs as required.
During the hearing, Rajan Singh expressed concerns over the report, citing a recent incident where a friend was murdered and questioned how the police could dismiss the threat without a thorough inquiry.
The High Court, however, stated, “We don’t have any other machinery than the Delhi Police, and they are saying there is no threat perception.”
Background of the Petition
Rajan Singh, who is contesting the 2025 Delhi State Assembly elections from the Kalkaji constituency, had approached the court seeking personal security. He alleged receiving threats from rival candidates and cited an incident on January 15, 2025, where individuals allegedly tore his Electoral Roll Certificate and issued threats.
Singh claimed that despite calling the police and reporting the incident to higher officials, no action was taken. The petitioner also highlighted that he was previously provided security during campaigning in 2024, which continued until October of the same year.
The High Court had issued a notice to the Delhi Police on January 20, seeking their response to Singh’s plea.
Key Developments:
- The Delhi Police concluded there was no credible threat to Singh after an inquiry.
- Security will be provided during Singh’s election-related events as needed.
- The High Court disposed of the petition, citing no further directions were required.