ORAL JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner is a sitting member of Parliament from Purnia Loksabha Constituency and, presently, he is provided with ‘Y’ category security cover, however, by the writ petition, he is seeking enhancement of the same in view of the threats to his life and property on account of persistent threats from Lawrence Bishnoi gang and Chhotu Yadav gang. In this regard, he has made several representations to the Government of Bihar as well as Union of India. He has also lodged an FIR against Chhotu Yadav gang.

2. A counter affidavit has been also filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8, Superintendent of Police, Purnia.

3. I heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar and learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India.

4. It transpires from the statements at bar from both sides that the petitioner was having ‘Y’ category security at the time of filing the present petition. However, subsequently, vide order dated 09.08.2025, the Government of Bihar decided to provide ‘Y+’ security cover to the petitioner. But subsequently, vide decision dated 23.09.2025, the Government of Bihar, scaled down the security cover of the petitioner from ‘Y+’ to ‘Y’ category. As such, undisputedly the petitioner is having ‘Y’ category security at present.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no communication was made to the petitioner regarding upgrading of his security cover from ‘Y’ to ‘Y+’ vide order dated 09.08.2025 or scaling down of his security from ‘Y+’ to ‘Y’ category vide order dated 23.09.2025.

6. He also submits that no input whatsoever was invited from the petitioner while scaling down his security cover vide order dated 23.09.2025, offending well established Principles of Natural Justice. The assessment of threat perception cannot be arbitrary, opaque or bereft of procedural fairness.

7. He also submits that conferment of security is not a matter of privilege but is intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to life and liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, any decision either granting, modifying or withdrawal of such protection must be informed by objective material and adherence to fairness in decision making. Hence, the order dated 23.09.2025 is not sustainable and is, accordingly, liable to the set aside.

8. He further submits that in view of serious and persistent threats to the life and property of the petitioner, he requires at least ‘Z’ category security. However, the respondents-authorities are arbitrarily denying adequate protection to the petitioner. Hence, the respondents-authorities may be directed to assess the security threat objectively and discreetly and while making such assessment, the threats as perceived by the petitioner should be also examined and considered by the concerned authorities.

9. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the Union of India and learned Standing Counsel for Government of Bihar vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for enhancement of his security cover.

10. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the Union of India submits that in view of the representation of the petitioner to Union of India, the threat perception was assessed by the Security Agency. But the Security Agency found no specific threats to the petitioner. However, the Union of India has sent a letter dated 06.11.2025 to the State Government to address the security concern of the petitioner based on local threats.

11. However, learned Standing counsel for the State of Bihar submits that vide order dated 09.08.2025, the security cover of the petitioner was upgraded from ‘Y’ to ‘Y+’ category. However, in view of review of threat perception, the security cover has been again scaled down to ‘Y’ category vide order dated 23.09.2025. However, the order dated 23.09.2025 has not been challenged by the petitioner and hence, the present writ petition has become infructuous and not maintainable in view of the order dated 09.08.2025 and 23.0