BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 1 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

APHC010260822024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3368]

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

WRIT PETITION NO: 12881/2024

Between:

P Sudhakara Reddy ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of A.P. and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M BALA KRISHNA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following:

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 2 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

WRIT PETITION No.12881 OF 2024

Between:

P.Sudhakara Reddy, S/o.P.Venugopal Reddy, Aged 65

years, Senior Advocate, R/o.C-18,Raintree Park Villas,

Opp.ANU, Nambur, Guntur.

… Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat,

Velagapudi, Guntur District.

2. The Director General of Police,

Government of Andhra Pradesh,

Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

3. The Security Review Committee,

Rep. by its Additionalo Director General of Police,

Intelligence Department, Mangalagiri,

Guntur District.

4. The Superintendent of Police,

Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ..Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 14.10.2024.

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 3 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Order? Yes/No

JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 4 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ WRIT PETITION No.12881 OF 2024

% 14.10.2024

# Between:

P.Sudhakara Reddy, S/o.P.Venugopal Reddy, Aged 65

years, Senior Advocate, R/o.C-18,Raintree Park Villas,

Opp.ANU, Nambur, Guntur.

… Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat,

Velagapudi, Guntur District.

2. The Director General of Police,

Government of Andhra Pradesh,

Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

3. The Security Review Committee,

Rep. by its Additionalo Director General of Police,

Intelligence Department, Mangalagiri,

Guntur District.

4. The Superintendent of Police,

Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

!

Counsel for the petitioner

:

Sri M.Bala Krishna

^

Counsel for the Respondents

No.1 to 4/State

:

Sri D.Srinivasa Rao, learned

Advocate General.

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 5 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. G.Subas Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in

1997 (2) ALD 767.

2. Katasani Rami Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh reported in 1998 Crl.L.J.3897.

3. Bumireddy Ram Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online 659.

4. A.V.Subba Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported

in 2021 (2) ALD 643.

This Court made the following:

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 6 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

WRIT PETITION No.12881 OF 2024

O R D E R:

Initially the Writ Petition was filed Under Article 226 of Constitution

of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the

respondents in seeking to withdraw the security in the form of 2 + 2

provided to the petitioner without any prior notice or any objective

exercise as arbitrary and illegal offending Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and issue a direction to the respondents to continue

to provide the security personnel in the form 2 + 2. Later, the petitioner

amended including another prayer to set aside the letter C.No.548/SB-

XI-NLR/2024, dated 03.08.2024.

02. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Sri M. Bala Krishna, learned counsel for Writ Petitioner and learned

Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4.

03. The petitioner is a former Additional Advocate General for the

State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner contends that he was allotted

cases pertaining to 18 Departments which includes most sensitive cases

involving the present Chief Minister and other leaders of political parties.

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 7 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

The petitioner handled those cases on behalf of the State. The details of

cases are mentioned in the affidavit.

04. The petitioner has been targeted by the then opposition leaders

and others. Some section of media also targeted the petitioner, as he

appeared against the then opposition leaders. It became difficult for the

petitioner to appear on behalf of the State. Therefore, the State

accorded 2 + 2 security to the petitioner while he was serving as

Additional Advocate General for the State to discharge his duties

fearlessly.

05. The son of present Chief Minister, against whom, the petitioner

represented on behalf of State made some entries in a book called as

“The Red Book”. He openly declared in public meetings about

mentioning of some names in the Red Book, and that after coming to

power, he will not leave them unpunished. The information was

published through media channels. The name of the petitioner stands

third, as the present Chief Minister was arrested in Skill Development

Case. At the same time, the anti social elements are physically targeting

the persons, who are not liked by the present ruling party.

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 8 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

06. The petitioner apprehends physical attack. Therefore, for the

same reasons, for which the petitioner granted personal security,

continuance of same is justified. The petitioner was designated as

Senior Counsel by the High Court vide ROC.No.18/SO/2019, dated

06.05.2022. The petitioner has a fundamental right under Article 19 and

21 of Constitution of India to pursue his professions without any fear or

intimidation. The State has an obligation to continue the security in the

context of guidelines issued by the State, and also in view of the

judgments of the High Court regarding evaluation of security threat for

the purposes of providing security to the individuals.

07. The flow of events clearly indicate a bona-fide apprehension in the

mind of the petitioner that a customary, pre-functionary of process of

review of security measures as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.655

dated 13.03.1997 would be undertaken very soon and a decision would

be taken to withdraw the security provided to the petitioner as and when

the review is undertaken. This Court in G.Subas Reddy Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh

1

issued certain guidelines to be followed for providing

security to the private persons, they are in force till date. No exparte

1

1997 (2) ALD 767

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 9 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

review of protocol can be deemed appropriate without hearing the

citizens concerned.

08. In the circumstances stated above, the petitioner have no

efficacious alternative remedy, except to approach this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus

declaring that the action of the respondents in seeking to withdraw the

security in the form of 2 + 2 provided to the petitioner without any prior

notice or any objective exercise as arbitrary and illegal, and to direct the

respondents to continue the security in the form of 2 + 2.

09. The 4

th

respondent i.e., Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore

District, filed counter affidavit and the same was adopted by the 3

rd

respondent i.e., The Security Review Committee, rep. by its Additional

Director General of Police, Intelligence Department, Mangalagiri, stating

that there was no threat to the life of the petitioner. The petitioner worked

as Additional Advocate General. He was provided with 2 + 2 PSOs

(Positional Based Security) as he was attending in several cases on

behalf of the State in the capacity of additional Advocate General. The

petitioner resigned for the post of Additional Advocate General on

06.06.2024. Now the petitioner is not appearing on behalf of the State.

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 10 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

10. The Security Review Committee (S.R.C.) is the competent

authority to decide whether to continue the security or to withdraw the

security provided to the petitioner. Security Review Committee (S.R.C.)

meeting was conducted on 16.07.2024. The security of the petitioner

was reviewed basing on the threat perception. The Security Review

Committee has taken a decision that there is no threat to the life of the

petitioner and no security to the petitioner is recommended.

11. The latest Threat Perception Report (hereinafter referred to as

“T.P.R.”) was also obtained from Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore

Town, as the petitioner is native of Nellore Rural Mandal. The Sub

Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Town (In-charge of Nellore Rural Sub

Division), not recommended any security to the petitioner, as he was not

holding any post.

12. The petitioner cannot make out any case relying on media reports

or You Tube Channels News. Those reports are only hear-say evidence.

None of the allegations in report can be proved. The media reports are

mere hear-say and inadmissible as evidence. There is no material to

substantiate the allegations of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 11 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

material placed before the Court in support of the allegations of the

petitioner.

13. The threat perception is a dynamic phenomenon. It is never

permanent. Therefore, it is reviewed periodically. The security of an

individual is given highest priority by the State. If there are inputs that

there is imminent danger to the life and security of the individual,

security cover is provided immediately. This Court in the case of

Katasani Rami Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2

held that

“threat to one’s life may be temporary and in such a case continuous

security may not be needed. Whenever personal security is provided to

a person, it must be constantly reviewed by the concerned

Superintendent of Police on the basis of information available with him.

If he genuinely feels that threat is vanished, he may recall the security”.

14. This Court in W.P.No.16540/2019 observed that “ providing

security cover is only to protect the life of individual and it cannot be

utilised as a tool to exert threat on other rival groups and it is not a label

of bureaucracy. The High Court while exercising power under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, cannot sit over appeal against the decision

2

1998 Crl.L.J. 3897

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 12 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

taken by the State Level Security Review Committee and compel them

to provide necessary security cover to the petitioner, when the

committee based on the Track Perception Report assessed the threat

perception and took a decision”.

15. The claim of the petitioner is not based on any material. The

removal of security cover to the petitioner is based on the Security

Review Committee report. This Court in W.P.16540/2019 further held

that “issuance of Writ of Mandamus is purely discretionary and the same

cannot be issued as a matter of course. The petitioner must establish

the right first and then seek for the prayer to enforce such right. The

Court will enforce statutory duties for the public bodies on application of

a person, who can show that he himself has a legal right to insist of such

performance. The existence of a right is the foundation of jurisdiction of

a Court to issue Writ of Mandamus”.

16. This Court in the case of Bumireddy Ram Gopal Reddy Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh

3

held that “the law on the subject is also

sufficiently clear that the threat perception is a dynamic concept that is

ever changing. There cannot be any hard and fast rule for determining

3

2022 SCC Online 659

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 13 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

the threat perception”. The Court does not have expertise to determine

the threat perception. The Police/Security Agencies is the expertise and

the experience to determine the actual threat perception to the person.

Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

17. A reply affidavit came to be filed by the petitioner on 31.07.2024

disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 4

th

respondent. Contended that as per the counter affidavit, Threat

Perception Report was obtained from SDOP, Nellore. He recommended

not to continue security to the petitioner, as the petitioner is not holding

any post. In pursuant to the same, on 16.07.2024 basing on the Threat

Perception Report forwarded to the Security Review Committee, a

review was conducted and decision was taken. Therefore, the decision

taken by the S.R.C. was based on the Threat Perception Report of

S.D.P.O., Nellore, which indicates no application of mind and objective

assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case. No material was

examined by the State Review Committee. As per G.O.Rt.No.655,

review of security by State Review Committee shall be based on the

Threat Perception Report. Therefore, Threat Perception Report assumes

significance in such cases. The only parameter in the Threat Perception

Report is that the petitioner is not holding any official post. No

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 14 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

consideration as to whether the petitioner is actually facing any threat as

citizen. The petitioner is seeking continuance of security cover not by

virtue of his capacity as Additional Advocate General. Threats issued by

the people narrated in the affidavit, but the Threat Perception Report

considered the only fact that the petitioner is not holding any post.

Therefore, the State Review Committee decision that the petitioner is not

facing any threat is manifestly arbitrary and suffers from non-application

of mind.

18. An additional affidavit also came to be filed by the petitioner on

13.08.2024, contending that as per counter affidavit of the

4

th

respondent, a decision was taken by the State Review Committee on

16.07.2024 that no security to the petitioner is recommended. Copy of

the decision was never provided to the petitioner. The Court on

01.08.2024 directed the concerned authority to communicate the

decision of State Review Committee to the petitioner, but instead of

communicating copy of decision of State Review Committee, a letter

bearing C.No.548/SB-XI-NLR/2024, dated 03.08.2024, was issued to the

petitioner on 03.08.2024, which merely state the decision was taken by

the State Review Committee on 16.07.2024. No copy of decision of

State Review Committee was annexed to the letter. In the light of said

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 15 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

circumstances, the petitioner filed I.A.5/2024 seeking to amend the

prayer of writ petition to set aside the said letter and issue direction to

the respondents to continue the security. The Court allowed the said

application. Accordingly, the prayer of the Writ Petition was amended

including the relief of set aside the letter C.No.548/SB-XI-NLR/2024,

dated 03.08.2024 as under:

“Pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the main prayer as

follows: Main prayer. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,

more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring

the action of the respondents in seeking to withdraw the security

in the form of 2 + 2 provided to the petitioner without any prior

notice or any objective exercise, as arbitrary and illegal offending

Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside

the letter C.No.548/SB-XI-NLR/2024, dated 03.08.2024, and issue

a direction to the respondents to continue to provide the security

personnel in the form of 2 + 2 and pass such other order or orders

that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

19. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner reiterated the stands taken in the affidavits stated above filed

in support of the petitioner. He would submit that the order of State

Review Committee withdrawing security is not in accordance with the

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 16 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of

G.Subas Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others.

20. He would further submit that the counter affidavit filed by the 4

th

respondent would disclose that the security was withdrawn by the State

Review Committee basing on the report of Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Nellore, because, the petitioner is not holding the post of Additional

Advocate General. The threat perception was not considered with

reference to the threat extended to the petitioner from various political

circles, since the petitioner handled many sensitive cases involving the

several political leaders including opposition leaders and present Chief

Minister.

21. He would further submit that the petitioner was targeted as

disclosed in the media statements regarding “Red Book” reported in the

media. He would further submit that the Court may consider the State

Review Committee Report submitted to the Court, in the light of

observations made by this Court in the case of Bumireddy Ram Gopal

Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Home

Department and Another. This Court in the said judgment observed

that “the report shall contain the information at least insinuatingly, as to

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 17 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

what are the possible angles and corners from which there occurs a

potential threat perception and whether such vulnerable sections have

been meticulously scanned and a conclusion is drawn”. He would further

submit that the State Review Committee Report if not based on objective

assessment, it cannot be a ground to withdraw the security provided to

the petitioner.

22. Per contra, learned Advocate General would submit that this Court

in the case of G.Subas Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh

and others laid down guidelines for providing security to the citizens

and other functionaries. The Government in pursuance of the said

directions issued guidelines for providing personal security to private

persons vide G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 13.03.1997. In the guidelines, it is

enumerated that a private person may be provided individual security

only if there is a threat. The petitioner is no longer holding the post of

Additional Advocate General. He comes under the category of a private

person. A private person is entitled to security based on threat

perception when he was targeted by extremists or anti social elements

etc. At the first instance, the person facing threat shall approach the Unit

Officer (Superintendent of Police) concerned for security, and if the

application is rejected there, he shall prefer the application before Higher

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 18 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

Functionaries of Police for review. If the application is rejected there

also, then the person can apply to the State Government represented by

the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department for protection.

The authorities have to reconsider the threat perception as per the

procedure enumerated in the guidelines. The State Level Review

Committee would consider the applications in accordance with these

guidelines.

23. In the case on hand, the petitioner was provided with security

2 + 2 on 16.02.2021, while he was working as Additional Advocate

General, as per copy of duty passport filed by the petitioner. The list of

cases referred by the petitioner in his affidavit would show that except

few cases, most of the cases were entrusted to the petitioner

subsequent to providing security to the petitioner as per above passport.

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that security was provided to

him due to threat extended at that time on account of these cases is not

correct. It was provided as he was holding the post of Additional

Advocate General.

24. The learned Advocate General would further submit that as per

guidelines enumerated by this Court in the case of G.Subas Reddy Vs.

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 19 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

Government of Andhra Pradesh and others show that security

provided to all constitutional functionaries and certain State functionaries

to enable them to discharge their duties fearlessly. Therefore, the

petitioner was provided with 2 + 2 security at the relevant point in time in

the capacity of Additional Advocate General. No material is placed by

the petitioner to show that the security provided to him on 16.02.2021 is

on the ground that he was having threat perception at that time..

Therefore, after expiry of his term, the petition seeking continuity of the

such security is not maintainable in law.

25. The learned Advocate General would further submit that If the

petitioner feels that he is having a threat perception as claimed in the

affidavit, he ought to have filed an application before the Unit Officer for

providing personal security to him, as laid down by this Court in the case

of Katasani Rami Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and

others, in addition to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Division

Bench in the case of G.Subas Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh and others. The petitioner did not file any such application.

26. The learned Advocate General would further submit that the State

Review Committee in its report dated 16.07.2024, (a copy was submitted

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 20 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

to the Court in sealed cover) considered if the portioner has any threat

and came to an opinion that the petitioner has no threat perception.

Accordingly, passed the orders. He would further submit that in the light

of several judgments of this Court, wherein it was held that “Court

cannot substitute its own duty and declare the policy of the Government

is illegal or unconstitutional. The Court cannot sit over appeal against the

decision taken by the State Level Security Review Committee and

compel them to provide necessary security cover to the petitioner, when

the committee based on the Threat Perception Report assessed the

threat perception and took a decision’’.

27. Learned Advocate General would further submit that the petitioner

made several allegations in his affidavits about Red Book reported in

media statements, they are imaginary and not based on any tangible

material. Media reports cannot be taken into consideration as evidence.

Those statements published in the media do not show that physical

harm will be caused to the petitioner by any person. Such statements

cannot be taken into consideration for providing security to the petitioner,

merely because he appeared in cases referred to by him, as Additional

Advocate General. Law Officers appearing for the State or Central

Government in Courts would require to appear in such type of cases as

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 21 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

apart of discharging duty. They cannot ask for continuity of security

provided earlier, after the expiry of their term, unless there is specific

material showing existence of threat. In the case on hand, the State

Review Committed considered the threat perception to the petitioner

basing on TPR, and came to an opinion that the petitioner has no threat

perception. In those circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

28. In the light of rival contentions and on perusing the material

available on record, the point that arises for consideration in this Writ

Petition is as under:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of Writ of

Mandamus as prayed for”?

29. POINT:

This Court in the case of G.Subas Reddy Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh and others laid down the guidelines for providing personal

security guards to persons facing threats. Thereafter, in pursuance of

the said guidelines, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued

G.O.Rt.No.655 HOME (SC.B) Department, dated 13.03.1997, framing

the guidelines. The said guidelines enumerate “the persons who are

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 22 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

automatically entitled security such as constitutional functionaries”. The

guidelines further stated that “all other persons including statutory

functionaries and visiting dignitaries can be provided security depending

upon threat perception. The said threat perception has to be decided by

the State Review Committee at the unit level and at the State level”.

30. This Court in various judgments including Katasani Rami Reddy

Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, A.V.Subba Reddy

Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

4

and C. Adinarayana Reddy Vs. The

State of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 11.08.2020 in W.A.217/2020,

judgment dated 28.04.2020 in W.P.14445/2019, judgment dated

21.11.2019 in W.P.16540/2019, judgment dated 30.09.2019 in

W.A.308/2019 and judgment dated 30.07.2019 in W.P.7871/2019 had

taken the view that the issue of determination of threat perception is best

left to a specialized agency such as the Security Review Committee and

it would not be appropriate for this Court to substitute the decision of the

Special Security Review Committee with the judgment of this Court.

31. This Court in the case of Katasani Rami Reddy Vs. Government

of Andhra Pradesh and others taking note of the principles laid down

4

2021 (2) ALD 643

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 23 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

by the Division Bench in the case of G.Subas Reddy Vs. Government

of Andhra Pradesh and others, held that “threat to one’s life may be

temporary and in such a case continuous security may not be needed.

Therefore, whenever personal security is provided to a person, it must

be constantly reviewed by the concerned Superintendent of Police and

when on the basis of information available with him, he genuinely feels

that the threat has vanished, he may recall the security”. Thus, in view

of the principles laid down in the above judgment, threat perception

changes from time to time.

32. In the case of Katasani Rami Reddy Vs. Government of

Andhra Pradesh and others, the learned Single Judge taking note of

the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the case of G.Subas

Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others referred supra

held as under:

“While following the principles laid down by the Division Bench, I

will add further that, the questions whether security is to be

provided to the individual or not by the State is dependent upon

the threat perception with regard to that individual, and that is the

amount of threat and whether the threat is real or imaginary, and

in case there is threat, what is the degree of the threat to an

individual’s life, cannot be considered either by this Court or by

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 24 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

any other agency other than the police force itself. Police is the

competent authority and it is equipped with facilities like

intelligence services to come to a conclusion about threat

perception of an individual. Therefore, whenever an application is

made before a District Superintendent of Police by an individual

for providing personal security to him, while disposing of such an

application the District Superintendent of Police should invariably

record his finding with regard to the threat perception. Once such

a finding is recorded, it will be open for such an individual to

agitate the matter further, if the concerned Superintendent of

Police does not come to correct finding with regard to threat

perception”.

“This will also enable the District Superintendent of Police to

decide as to how much personal security is needed by an

individual. Otherwise, unless he knows the level of the threat, he

cannot be able to decide the matter. It is also well known that,

sometimes threat to one’s life can remain lifelong depending upon

the circumstances and the incidents, which care relatable with

respect to such an individual, but sometimes threat to one’s life

may be temporary and in such a case continuous security may not

be needed. Therefore, whenever personal security is provided to a

person, it must be constantly reviewed by the concerned

Superintendent of Police and when on the basis of information

available with him, he genuinely feels that the threat has vanished,

he may recall the security”.

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 25 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

33. The admitted facts basing on the pleadings are that the petitioner

was appointed as Additional Advocate General for the State of Andhra

Pradesh, vide G.O.Rt.No.146, Law (G) Dept., dated 06.06.2019.

Accordingly, the petitioner worked as Additional Advocate General till

06.06.2024. He resigned for the post of Additional Advocate General on

06.06.2024. At present the petitioner is not holding any constitutional or

executive post/statutory post or post. The petitioner was provided with

2 + 2 security from 16.02.2021 onwards, as per copy of Duty Passport

annexed to the Writ Petition.

34. The first contention of the petitioner is that several sensitive cases

were allocated to him, including the cases filed against the then

opposition leaders and the present Chief Minister. Therefore, he became

target to many people. Hence, evaluating threat to his life, the State

accorded 2 + 2 security. The petitioner in his affidavit furnished list of

cases attended by him as Additional Advocate General, contending that

those cases involve the then opposition party leaders and present Chief

Minister of Andhra Pradesh State.

35. The learned Advocate General in his arguments pointed out that

the security provided to the petitioner was from 16.02.2021 onwards,

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 26 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

whereas majority cases mentioned in the list allocated to him

subsequently. It would show that the security was not provided to him on

the ground that he was having threat to life. The security was provided to

him to perform his duties as Additional Advocate General fearlessly.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot ask for continuity of such security

without establishing that presently he is having threat to life.

36. The contention of the petitioner is that the security provided to him

earlier was due to threat to life, and not as post specific. Undisputedly,

as per annexure filed by the petitioner, it was from 16.02.2021 onwards.

Whereas the list of cases furnished in the affidavit would show that out

85 cases appeared by him as Additional Advocate General, only 10 to

12 cases relates to the year 2020 or 2021. The rest of the cases relate

to the years 2022 and 2023. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that

he was provided with security 2 + 2 on evaluation of threat to his life, as

he was appearing in those 85 cases, on facts is not tenable. On the

other hand, it can safely be presumed that security was provided to him,

to discharge duties fearlessly as Additional Advocate General. Any Law

Officer of that category would represent the State daily in important as

well sensitive cases, may be against political leaders,

terrorists/extremists or Naxalites etc. Therefore, such security will be

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 27 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

continued, till he holds the post of Additional Advocate General. If the

petitioner feels that he has a threat to life from any quarters like political

leaders, extremist, terrorists or Naxalites etc., even after resignation to

the post of Additional Advocate General, and if there is any need to

continue such security, he shall follow the procedure laid in

G.O.Rt.No.655 HOME (SC.B) Department, dated 13.03.1997, issued by

the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In view of the judgment of this

Court in the case of G.Subas Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh and others, any application, directly made to this Court shall

not be entertainable as no cause for a Mandamus by the Court shall be

deemed to have been arisen if the applicant made no efforts to approach

the competent authority for such security.

37. This Court in the case of Katasani Rami Reddy Vs. Government

of Andhra Pradesh and others, following the principles laid in above

case, added that “the questions whether security is to be provided to the

individual or not by the State is dependent upon the threat perception

with regard to that individual, and what is the amount of threat and

whether the threat is real or imaginary, and in case there is threat, what

is the degree of the threat to an individual’s life, cannot be considered

either by this Court or by any other agency other than the police force

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 28 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

itself. Police is the competent authority and it is equipped with facilities

like intelligence services to come to a conclusion about threat perception

of an individual. Therefore, whenever an application is made before a

District Superintendent of Police by an individual for providing personal

security to him, while disposing of such an application, the District

Superintendent of Police should invariably record his finding with regard

to the threat perception. Once such a finding is recorded, it will be open

for such an individual to agitate the matter further. Whenever personal

security is provided to a person, it must be constantly reviewed by the

concerned Superintendent of Police and when on the basis of

information available with him, he genuinely feels that the threat has

vanished, he may recall the security”.

38. In the case on hand, the petitioner after his resignation on

06.06.2024, did not make any application before the District

Superintendent of Police to continue security on the ground of threat

perception in the light of media statements. The petitioner directly

approached this Court, contending that he is under apprehension that

the proposed periodic review is only an empty formality and therefore,

sought the relief of Writ of Mandamus, seeking continuity of such

security provided to him earlier, when he was holding the post of

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 29 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

Additional Advocate General. Therefore, the petitioner without any

efforts to approach concerned authorities as per above GO, cannot

approach this Court directly, prejudging the issue that opinion of the

review committee headed by several senior IPS officers would be an

empty formality. I am afraid if such petitions are allowed, every person

will directly approach this Court, without any efforts to approach the

competent authority for security.

39. Admittedly subsequent to fling of Writ Petition, the State Level

Review Committee i.e., Security Review Committee (S.R.C.) on

16.07.2024 reviewed the threat perception of the petitioner and came to

an opinion that there is no specific threat to his life from any individual or

any group. Therefore, there is no need to provide security. Copy of the

report was placed before this Court in a sealed cover. This Court on

01.08.2024 instructed the Government Pleader to inform the concerned

authority to communicate the decision of Security Review Committee to

the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was communicated such

decision vide letter dated 03.08.2024 of the Superintendent of Police,

SPSR Nellore District intimating that the Security Review Committee in

its meeting held on 16.07.2024 decided to withdraw the security in the

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 30 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

absence of any specific threat from any individual or group, and as per

guidelines issued by the Government in this regard.

40. As stated above, later, the petitioner filed application for

amendment of prayer in the Writ Petition, to quash the said

communication, contending that he was not served with copy of order of

the Security Review Committee, and he was only communicated with

decision.

41. This Court in W.P.7871/2019 vide order dated 13.07.2019, in para

16 held that “the contention of the petitioner that copy of Security Review

Report is not furnished to him, cannot be countenanced, because this

Court in its order dated 15.07.2019 in W.P.7822/2019 held that the

particulars in the said report is a privileged information under Section

125 of Evidence Act and therefore, petitioner cannot have a look into it”.

42. Therefore, this Court in the above judgment held that the

particulars in the report of Security Review Committee is a privileged

information U/s.125 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore, the petitioner

cannot have a look into it. In that view of the mater, communication of

decision of the Security Review Committee to withdraw the security to

the petitioner in the absence of any specific threat from any individual or

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 31 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

group, without furnishing actual contents of the report, amounts to valid

communication.

43. This Court in several judgments referred above, held that the Writ

Court does not have a necessary expertise or the knowledge to assess

the ‘threat’ to a person. Threat perception is not a static concept. It is

dynamic and ever changing. There is a self-imposed restriction on this

Court in entering into the disputed areas of fact.

44. In the present case, the petitioner did not submit any application to

the Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore District, or any other District

to continue the security to him, on the ground that threat existed for him

in view of statements published in media relating to ‘Red Book’ stating

that the name of the petitioner was included in the said ‘Red Book’. The

media reports annexed by the petitioner are unverified. They are not

substantiated by other cogent material, to take them into consideration

as evidence. No material is available to show primafacie, any attempt/s

were made to cause physical harm to the petitioner, in pursuance of the

alleged statements published in the media.

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 32 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

45. The burden castes upon the petitioner to show that the decision

making process of Security Review Committee is vitiated or that the

decision is based upon an incorrect appreciation of facts.

46. The learned Senior Counsel Sri D.Prakash Reddy, in the

arguments submitted that this Court in the case of Bhoomireddy Rama

Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, observed that “the report

shall contain the information at least as to what are the possible angles

and corners from which there occurs a potential threat perception and

whether such vulnerable sections have been meticulously scanned and

a conclusion is drawn”.

47. The report of Security Review Committee placed before this

Court would show that the threat perception was considered on the

grounds 1) Whether the petitioner is having threat from any individual or

a group on activities of individual or groups? 2) Whether the individual

or group is likely to endanger the life of the petitioner? 3) Whether there

is any threat to physical assault? etc.,. answered them in negative and

then came to an opinion that there is no specific threat to the life of the

petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be contended that it was based only on

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 33 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

the Threat Perception Report (TPR) submitted by the Sub Divisional

Police Officer, Nellore that the petitioner is not holding any post now.

48. This Court in the case of G.Subas Reddy Vs. Government of

Andhra Pradesh and others held that “a person can approach this

Court seeking judicial review of the order of the Court with all constraints

self imposed and with the bounds of rules of judicial review may

examine individual cases strictly in accordance with law. Any

application, however, except for judicial review in the aforesaid

circumstances directly made to this Court shall not be entertainable as

no cause for a Mandamus by the Court shall be deemed to have been

arisen if the applicant made no efforts to approach the competent

authority for such security”.

49. Therefore, when the material relied upon by the petitioner does

not show that the decision making process is vitiated or that the order is

passed for extraneous reasons, the petitioner not entitled to any relief as

prayed for. No doubt that the petitioner was granted security all these

years. But that by itself does not mean that it should continue for ever,

more particularly, in the light of opinion of Security Review Committee

that there was no threat perception to the petitioner.

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 34 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

50. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petitioner is not entitled to

any relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the point is

answered.

51. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J

14.10.2024

psk

BVLNC,J W.P.No.12881 OF 2024

Page 35 of 35 DT: 14.10.2024

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

3

WRIT PETITION No.12881 OF 2024

14

th

October, 2024

w

psk