The Punjab & Haryana High Court has raised serious concerns over the rising trend of private security agencies using the term “Bouncer” in a way that promotes fear and disrespect in society. The Court described it as a "disturbing trend" that reduces trained security guards to symbols of aggression, which is neither acceptable in law nor in a civil society.
These remarks came while granting anticipatory bail to Taranjeet Singh, who was accused of operating an unlicensed security firm under the name “Fateh Bouncer Security Group.” The name and operations of the agency caught the Court’s attention due to the intimidating image it projected.
Read Also:- Water from Bhakra Nangal Dam is Lifeline for Haryana Farmers: State Tells High Court in Dispute with Punjab
“Today, in this part of our country, using the term ‘Bouncers’ for workers in security agencies is intended to serve a dual purpose—to invoke fear, anxiety, and terror in the mind of the public and to intimidate others,” stated the High Court.
The Court noted that such labels strip workers of human dignity, making them appear as enforcers instead of protectors. This behavior, as per the Court, is completely against the objectives of a democratic society and reduces a security guard’s respectable role to one of aggression and confrontation.
“It is demeaning in the sense that it reflexively strips off any empathetic or humanistic qualities found in a person, leaving behind a degraded, damaged, negative, and robotic connotation,” the Court added.
Further, the High Court highlighted that the State of Punjab is fully aware of the misuse of the term "Bouncer" by security agencies to exercise undue influence and aggression, yet remains “unperturbed and unconcerned.” This silence, according to the Court, shows the government’s insensitivity toward the issue.
The judge made it clear that it is not the Court's role to direct administrative policy but to sensitize the Executive. Still, the onus lies with the State to take corrective steps and ensure respectful job titles are used.
“It is up to the State to take or not to take any steps to ensure that the term ‘Bouncer’ is not used... so that these personnel associate their roles with respect, dignity and responsibility,” emphasized the Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Minimum Practice Rule for Judicial Service: What High Courts and States Said
The case also involved allegations that Taranjeet Singh and his co-accused Roshan Lal defamed a rival agency, threatened its owner via social media, and operated without a license—violating the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007. The Court, however, found no strong reason to justify custodial interrogation and granted pre-arrest bail, citing that the police had ample time but did not arrest him.
Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate (Through video conferencing) for the complainant.
Title: Taranjeet Singh v. State of Punjab
