A dramatic face-off between two police forces — Punjab and Chandigarh — unfolded this week over the custody of a little-known political figure, Navneet Chaturvedi, who claims to be the president of the Janata Party (India). The confrontation, which lasted nearly 28 hours and drew in the judiciary, stemmed from allegations that Chaturvedi had forged the signatures of 10 Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLAs on Rajya Sabha bypoll nomination papers. What began as a case of electoral fraud soon escalated into a full-blown jurisdictional standoff between two law enforcement agencies, raising serious questions about inter-state cooperation, political interference, and the limits of police authority within the Union Territory framework.

The controversy broke out on Tuesday when the Punjab Police attempted to arrest Chaturvedi in Chandigarh. The arrest was linked to an FIR registered in Punjab, accusing him of submitting fake nomination papers for the upcoming Rajya Sabha by-election scheduled on October 24. The bypoll was being held to fill the vacancy created by AAP MP Sanjeev Arora’s resignation after his election to the Punjab Assembly. However, the operation took an unexpected turn when the Chandigarh Police intervened, refusing to hand over Chaturvedi and instead placing him under what they described as “protective custody.” Chaturvedi had reportedly told the Chandigarh Police that he feared being abducted by Punjab Police officials, which led to the latter’s hesitation in allowing his immediate transfer.

Witnesses near Sukhna Lake, where the initial encounter occurred, reported a minor scuffle between the two forces as Punjab officers tried to execute an arrest warrant. The incident quickly snowballed into a standoff at Sector 3 police station, where over 50 Punjab Police personnel — including senior officers such as Superintendents and Deputy Superintendents of Police — stationed themselves throughout Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. The Punjab contingent, anticipating that Chandigarh Police might move Chaturvedi elsewhere, remained camped outside the station, with some officers reportedly hiding nearby to prevent a secret handover or transfer of the accused.

The impasse prompted Punjab’s legal team to approach a Rupnagar court, accusing the Chandigarh Police of obstructing justice and refusing to comply with a lawful warrant. On Wednesday, the court intervened decisively. The Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a directive ordering the Chandigarh Police to assist the Rupnagar Police in executing the arrest. The court also demanded a written explanation from Station House Officer (SHO) Narinder Patiyal for not cooperating with Punjab authorities, noting that his actions amounted to creating a “hindrance” in the execution of the warrant. Furthermore, the court instructed the Chandigarh Senior Superintendent of Police to countersign the SHO’s explanation within four days, underscoring the seriousness of the lapse.

Punjab state counsel Ferry Sofat, who represented the government in court, criticized the Chandigarh Police for violating procedural norms. “It was their duty to assist in executing the warrant,” Sofat said, adding that Chandigarh authorities not only failed to cooperate but also gave Chaturvedi undue protection. The court’s order made it clear that when a valid arrest warrant is issued by a competent court, local police are legally obligated to assist the requesting agency, especially when both jurisdictions fall under the same national legal framework.

The high-voltage confrontation ended only on Wednesday evening, when Punjab Police finally managed to arrest Chaturvedi from Sector 3 police station around 8:15 pm — almost 28 hours after the initial attempt. His arrest marked the culmination of a tense standoff that had drawn significant political attention.

The case against Chaturvedi itself is rooted in serious allegations of forgery, impersonation, and electoral fraud. According to the Election Commission’s scrutiny process, Chaturvedi had filed two separate sets of nomination papers — on October 6 and October 13 — for the Rajya Sabha bypoll. Both sets reportedly contained forged signatures of 10 AAP MLAs, including legislators Ashok Parashar Pappi and Dinesh Kumar Chadha. The signatures were presented as endorsements from these MLAs, a requirement for independent candidates seeking nomination to the upper house of Parliament. However, when verification procedures began, several of the purported signatories denied ever signing Chaturvedi’s papers, prompting immediate rejection of his nominations.

In response, MLA Ashok Parashar Pappi filed a formal police complaint accusing Chaturvedi of forgery and impersonation, leading to the registration of multiple FIRs across Punjab. Investigators later revealed that this was not the first time Chaturvedi had been accused of such acts. Police officials confirmed he already faced several pending cases in the state involving similar irregularities and alleged attempts to falsify documents for political purposes.

The political fallout was swift. Punjab minister Aman Arora lashed out at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government, accusing it of undermining democratic institutions by influencing law enforcement agencies. Arora alleged that Chandigarh Police, which functions under the administrative control of the Union Territory and hence the Centre, was providing “VIP treatment” to Chaturvedi instead of assisting Punjab Police. “This is an open attempt to destroy democracy,” Arora said, arguing that the Chandigarh Police’s reluctance to hand over the accused was a politically motivated act designed to shield him.

While the BJP has not officially responded to the allegations, the incident has raised uncomfortable questions about how political power intersects with policing in shared jurisdictions like Chandigarh, which serves as the capital of both Punjab and Haryana but is administered as a Union Territory under the direct control of the central government. The episode has also reignited debates about the need for clear legal protocols governing inter-state cooperation in criminal cases, especially in politically sensitive situations.

For now, Chaturvedi remains in the custody of the Punjab Police and is expected to face multiple charges, including forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. His arrest has also exposed deeper fissures within India’s federal structure, where local and central authorities often find themselves at odds over enforcement powers.

The timing of the controversy adds another layer of complexity. With the Rajya Sabha bypoll set for October 24, the ruling Aam Aadmi Party is seeking to ensure a smooth electoral process. The vacancy was created after Sanjeev Arora, an AAP MP, resigned following his victory in the state assembly elections earlier this year. The AAP, which commands a dominant majority of 93 seats in the 117-member Punjab assembly, has nominated industrialist Rajinder Gupta as its official candidate for the seat. Given AAP’s numbers, its victory in the bypoll appears certain. However, the nomination scandal has diverted attention from the campaign and handed the opposition a chance to attack both AAP and the administrative apparatus of Punjab.

As the investigation continues, several unanswered questions remain. What motivated Navneet Chaturvedi, a relatively unknown political aspirant, to attempt such a high-risk act of forgery? Did he act alone, or were there others involved? And, crucially, why did the Chandigarh Police intervene so assertively, effectively delaying a lawful arrest? These questions have fueled speculation that the episode was more than just a procedural misunderstanding — perhaps a glimpse into the tug-of-war between regional autonomy and central oversight.

The Punjab–Chandigarh police standoff has thus become more than a law-and-order issue. It has emerged as a political flashpoint symbolizing the friction between state governments and Union Territory administrations under the shadow of national politics. The episode has underscored how even routine enforcement actions can morph into political theatre in India’s deeply polarized climate. As the courts, police, and political actors now move to untangle the case, the saga of Navneet Chaturvedi stands as a reminder of how fragile the balance of power can be when politics, law, and governance collide.