Security provision is contingent on current threat assessments, which must be evaluated by the Security Review Committee, and not guaranteed based on past positions.

ORDER :

B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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. The petitioner handled those cases on behalf of the State. The details of cases are mentioned in the affidavit.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 1997 (2) ALD 767 issued certain guidelines to be followed for providing security to the private persons, they are in force till date. No ex parte review of protocol can be deemed appropriate without hearing the citizens concerned.

8. 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