Chandigarh, May 28 -- The Punjab government told the high court that the decision to withdraw security cover of Rajya Sabha member and former cricketer, Harbhajan Singh, was taken based on the March 3 review meeting and not on April 25, a day after he joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It denied allegations of political vindictiveness levelled by the former cricketer, stating that the same are "unfounded and baseless." Seven MPs, constituting two-thirds of the AAP's total strength of 10 in the Upper House, switched to the BJP on April 24. They include Raghav Chadha, Sandeep Pathak, Ashok Kumar Mittal, Harbhajan Singh, Rajinder Gupta, Vikramjit Singh Sahney (all from Punjab), and Swati Maliwal (Delhi). The next day, the former cricketer's security was withdrawn by the Punjab Police, an action challenged by him in the high court on April 30. In the plea, Singh had alleged that on April 25, his security cover was withdrawn in Delhi and Punjab by the state government in "a very arbitrary and vindictive manner" without any fresh threat assessment and issuing any notice or opportunity of hearing to him. According to the affidavit filed by Mandhir Singh, assistant inspector general of police, a security assessment was conducted by the security review committee (SRC) of the threat perception of all protectees of the Jalandhar area on March 3. ". members of SRC had participated, and no specific threat was reported by any of the participating wings regarding the petitioner Singh. Further, the engagements of the petitioner outside Jalandhar, within the state of Punjab, were found to be very limited and pertinently, he predominantly stays outside State of Punjab," the affidavit says, adding that the commissioner of Jalandhar was directed to take care of the security of the petitioner through local deployment, and the existing security cover was withdrawn on April 25. The government has asserted that outside the state security cover is given for 72 hours only. He was not continuously residing in Punjab. Hence, security arrangements were changed, the affidavit says. The government has denied the allegations from the former cricketer that he was left unprotected, asserting that security arrangements were made through "local deployment". The government has asserted that the petitioner does not require the state police security cover now, as the ministry of home affairs (MHA) has provided him "Y" category security cover, which is a superior categorisation than the state had provided, the affidavit says. The government has further clarified that there was no unofficial security cover provided to the former cricketer, and all the cops and other staff were those who were authorised officially and attached to him. This response comes in the wake of the court asking the state to clarify whether some cops were unofficially attached to him, as the number varied in different documents....