Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH.N
Lingala Ramalinga Reddy, S/o Late Gangi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP – Respondent
ORDER :
HARINATH.N, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withdrawing 1+1 personal security officers on 20.07.2024 and seeks a direction to the respondents to restore the security officers to the petitioner. In that regard the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.03.2025, which is yet to be considered by the respondents.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner hails from a family which is politically active and the petitioner’s father and mother were elected as Sarpanch of Velpula Village. It is submitted that the mother of petitioner served as a Sarpanch of the village for almost twenty years. The petitioner and his wife were also elected Mandal Prajaparishad. The petitioner’s wife was also nominated as Chairman of Zilla Grandhalaya in the year 2020. She was also nominated as President of YSRCP Mahila Wing for Kadapa District.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing threat from his political and business opponents and on account of the threat to the family of the petitioner, he has shifted his children to Bangalore for safety and educational purposes in
The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive threat assessment before withdrawing personal security, recognizing the dynamic nature of threats faced by individuals in political and business cont....
Security assessments for political leaders fall within the jurisdiction of designated security agencies, and courts cannot intervene unless there is a clear failure to act.
Assessment of real threat perception and granting security at the state's cost only in compelling cases linked to public or national service.
Profession - Refusal to provide petitioner personal security - High court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Art 226 of Constitution, cannot substitute its decision to decision of competent Aut....
Article 21 protects against state action but does not guarantee police protection to individuals whose threat perceptions arise from their own criminal activities.
A person with a criminal background cannot claim state-funded police protection when threats arise from their own activities, as this contradicts public morality.
Security provision is contingent on current threat assessments, which must be evaluated by the Security Review Committee, and not guaranteed based on past positions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
