SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 21362

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J
Jalagam Prasad Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.22636 OF 2026



Important Points

The provision of personal security is an administrative decision based on periodic threat assessments; there is no vested or enforceable legal right to claim its continuation regardless of the prevailing threat perception.

Subject

Administrative Law - Government Security

Headnote

The petitioner, a former Minister, challenged the withdrawal of his personal security arrangement via a notice-cum-order dated 09.07.2026, alleging it was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner claimed a persistent threat from extremists due to his family's political history and cited specific threatening communications received via WhatsApp. The court examined the threat perception reports submitted by the authorities and the petitioner's representations. The primary issue was whether a former political figure has a vested legal right to the continuation of personal security. The court reasoned that the provision of security is a purely administrative measure based on periodic threat assessments and is subject to review by competent authorities. It was observed that the petitioner had remained inactive in politics for over three decades and that the administrative decision to withdraw security was based on an objective assessment showing no current specific threat. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus by duly declaring the impugned notice-cum-order vide C.No.170/CSB-KMM/2026 dt.09.07.2026 withdrawing the personal security arrangement of the petitioner without any enquiry or prior intimation, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate/provide the security cover of 1+1 PSOs (Personal Security Officers) and to provide any additional security to the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner is the son of late Sri Jalagam Vengal Rao, former Chief Minister of United Andhra Pradesh and Home Minister and Union Minister and the petitioner himself was a Minister in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh from 1990 to 1994 twice elected as MLA from Sathupalli Constituency officiating the portfolios of Small Scale Industries and Panchayat Raj. The petitioner claims that as the Chief Minister of United Andhra Pradesh and Home Minister and Industries Minister and Union Minister, his father, and as Minister in the former Government of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner, have taken several measures to curb the extremist activities in the State due to which, the petitioner’s family has remained under constant threat of extremists and in view thereof, he was provided with security by the Government. He submits that during the year 2024, when the police protection was withdrawn, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4427 of 2024 before this Court and the said protection was restored on the directions of this Court in the said Writ Petition vide order dt.20.02.2024 and ultimately, the Writ Petition was closed confirming the interim orders since the same was implemented by the respondents. It is submitted that in January, 2024 after withdrawal of the security cover, the petitioner had received WhatApps calls from a mobile number +91 7816035966 where the caller spoke in a harsh and threatening manner and the said caller sent a message on 18.02.2024 at 12.59 PM demanding Rs.1.00 crore and stating that “this is in the interest of your safety”, indicating threat to his life and safety. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner’s security has been restored and again, vide orders dt.27.06.2026, the 6th respondent has withdrawn the security as per G.O.Rt.No.644 dt.13.03.1997, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20775 of 2026, wherein this Court has directed the 6th respondent to afford him an opportunity to submit his explanation and of being heard. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a detailed memorandum on 06.07.2026 explaining the necessity of security to him and also appeared before the 6th respondent on 08.07.2026 to explain his threat perception, but the 6th respondent, without considering the same, has passed the impugned order. Therefore, this Writ Petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of

Abhishek Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And ors. , 2021 Supreme(All) 450 : 2022 AIR(All)(NOC) 190

wherein it was observed that a person or political personality cannot claim security on the ground that he faces threats from his enemies because of some private dispute with them, but where the political personalities hold public office and might have real threat from the terrorists/militants/fundamentalists outfits and organized criminal gangs for the work done or being done in the interest of nation by such political personality, they are entitled to be given security at State expense and if they were to be harmed by such elements, it would affect the prestige of the Government and authority of the State and it would adversely create an impression in the minds of the people that if, the Government

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top