G Suryanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 76 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

              WRIT PETITION No.25353 of 2022


ORDER:

The petitioner herein is a former member of the Legislative

Assembly. The petitioner states that his father had been killed

by his political opponents in the year 1994 due to which, the

petitioner had been provided personal security officers in the

year 1994 itself. Thereafter, the petitioner had initially contested

unsuccessfully in the election to the State Assembly in the year

2009 and was subsequently elected in the general elections held

in the year 2014.

2. The petitioner upon withdrawal of the personal

security officers in the year 2009, had approached the State

Human Rights Commission in this regard. The Human Rights

Commission, by order dated 12.04.2010, had directed the

Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram not to obstruct the

private security engaged by him.

3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.2886 of 2011 for a

direction to the police authorities to provide personal security.

This Court, by an interim order dated 14.02.2011, had issued

directions to the police authorities to provide personal security.

After winning the elections in 2014, the Government had

provided personal security to the petitioner, by way of providing

for 3+3 gunmen, which was not given to any other member of

the Legislative Assembly.

4. The petitioner contested unsuccessfully in the

general elections held on 2019 as a member of a National

Political Party. After the election, the security given to the

petitioner was reduced from 3+3 gunmen to 1+1 gunmen.

Thereafter, the 1+1 personal security was also withdrawn.

Aggrieved by the said withdrawal of security and refusal to

permit the petitioner to engage private security, the petitioner

had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.4843 of 2020.

This Court, by an order dated 08.12.2021, had directed the

respondent authorities to review the threat perception against

him and also directed the authorities to restore the security

prevailing on 11.02.2020, on payment basis. This security was

restored. However, the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated

17.05.2022 informed the petitioner that the review committee

had decided to close the 1+1 personal security provided to him

on the ground that there was no threat to the life of the

petitioner. Thereafter, the 1+1 personal security source provided

on payment basis were withdrawn.

5. Aggrieved by the said withdrawal of security, the

petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ

petition.

6. The petitioner submits that the withdrawal of

security has resulted in danger to his life. He states that the

security has been withdrawn despite the fact that his life is

under danger on account of political rivalries in the area. The

petitioner states that his followers have been attacked at various

places and cited 16 incidents of such attacks to contend that

the threat perception expressed by the Review Committee is

clearly misplaced and that the finding of the Review Committee

is not based on facts but on the instructions of his political

rivals.

7. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit

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

details of the manner in which security was given to the

petitioner earlier has been set out. The 3rd respondent contends

that the petitioner had been given security of 3+3 personal

security source on account of the constitutional post held by

him.

8. He would submit that the petitioner had submitted a

representation dated 30.11.2017 for enhancement of security

from 3+3 personal security source to 4+4 personal security

source on the ground that there was a plot hatched to kill him

by hiring assailants from Bihar. However, it was found, on

enquiry, that there was no evidence for such an apprehension

and he was allowed to continue with security of 3+3 personal

security.

9. The 3rd respondent further states that in view of the

findings of the Special Security Review Committee, held from

time to time, the security of the petitioner was reduced from 3+3

personal security to 1+1 personal security and subsequently all

security was removed as there was no specific threat to the

petitioner from any individual or group. Thereafter, the further

review was conducted, in compliance with the directions of this

Court in W.P.No.48483 of 2020. In this review also the Special

Security Review Committee did not find any ground to extend

security to the petitioner as there was no danger or threat to his

life.

10. The 3rd respondent apart from stating that there was

no threat to the life of the petitioner would also submit that the

petitioner had misused the gunmen provided to him as personal

security to threaten farmers and civilians due to which, cases

were also registered against him. It is further submitted that the

petitioner was not entitled to any further security in view of

guideline No.6 of G.O.Rt.No.655.

11. The guidelines for providing personal security

guards to persons facing threats were elaborated and laid down

by this Court in the case of Sri Gangula Subas Reddy vs. State

of Andhra Pradesh and Others1. Thereafter, in pursuance of

the said guidelines, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had

framed detailed guidelines in G.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC.B)

Department, dated 13.03.1997. The guidelines enumerated the

persons who are automatically entitled to security such as

constitutional functionaries. Apart from this, the guidelines

state that all other persons, including statutory functionaries

and visiting dignitaries can be provided security depending upon

the threat perception against such persons. The said threat

perception is to be decided by a Security Review Committee at

the Unit level and at the State level. The guidelines also stipulate

in guideline No.6 that any person against whom a criminal case

is registered in any police station in India would be treated as a

person having a criminal background and such persons should

not be given security except when the criminal case is closed or

the person is acquitted. However, if such a person with a

criminal background is holding public office, then specific

(1997) 2 ALD 694 (DB) : (1996) 4 ALT 985 (DB)

permission, from the I.G.P of Intelligence, should be taken

before providing security to such person. In the present case,

the Crime No.330 of 2019 on the file of Dharmavaram Police

Station for offences under Sections 147, 341, 290 r/w 34 I.P.C

is said to be pending against the petitioner and is under

investigation.

12. In view of the above facts, it cannot be said that the

petitioner is entitled for protection and provision of personal

security as a matter of right.

13. This Court in various Judgments including Katasani

Rami Reddy vs. Government of A.P and Others2, A.V.Subba

Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh3, Sri C.Adinarayana

Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Judgment dated

11.08.2020 in W.A.No.217 of 2020, Judgment dated 28.04.2020

in W.P.No.14445 of 2019, Judgment dated 21.11.2019 in

W.P.No.16540 of 2019, Judgment dated 30.09.2019 in

W.A.No.308 of 2019 and Judgment dated 30.07.2019 in

W.P.No.7871 of 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

(1998) 3 ALD 488 : (1998) 3 ALT 392

(2021) 2 ALD 643

Special Security Review Committee with the Judgment of this

Court.

14. In the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the

security Review Committee has, after a review of the situation,

decided that there was no threat to the life of the petitioner, it

would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any further

direction.

15. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date :04.01.2023 RJS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.25353 of 2022

Date : 04.01.2023

RJS