HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION NO.9924 OF 2011. DATED 25th April, 2011 BETWEEN A.Mallikarjuna Reddy …Petitioner And The State of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secrtariat, Hyderbad and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.9924 of 2011 ORDER: Heard both sides. Perused the case file. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the second respondent in withdrawing the 1+1 police security provided to the petitioner in the year 2004 as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that as the petitioner was closely related to the former late Chief Minister, Dr.Y.S.Rajasekhar Reddy, during his regime, considering the threat perception for the extremists and from other quarters in Kadapa district, the respondents have provided police protection/security from the year 2005. It is stated that after the demise of Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, the petitioner joined in the new party called YSR Congress Party and due to change of political party, the local leaders who got influence in the present ruling government are harassing him for one reason or the other through administrative machinery and also withdrawing the police security provided to him. It is further stated that the petitioner is facing threat perception to his life and limb from the Naxalities and other political opponents who have got faction history. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is inter alia stated that after meticulous scrutiny of the alleged threat perception to the petitioner, the Security Review Committee has come to a viable conclusion to withdraw the security provided to the petitioner. It is stated that unwanted security when provided in the absence of any threat perception leads to many disastrous social distortions and the undeserving protectee may misutilize and thereby due to the scarcity the police force may not be able to cater to the needs of the common citizenry of the State. It is further stated that individual security is provided only where there exists a grave threat to the life of the citizen based on the proper analysis of threat perception to the individual by the Security Review Committee. It is also pointed out stated that in case the petitioner has any fresh inputs regarding threat to him, he can represent to the District Superintendent of Police in that regard and the case will be considered on such fresh threat perception on merits. The philosophy of the State should be to maintain law and order at a macro level rather than concentrating on safety of certain individuals in the society. This Court while disposing of Writ Petition Nos.291 of 1995, 10432 and 12172 of 1996 dated 14.10.1996 and 31.10.1996 issued certain instructions and guide lines for the provision of personal security officers to constitutional and statutory functionaries and to private persons. Pursuant thereto, the Government after due consideration of the proposal of the then Director General and Inspector General of Police issued G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 13.03.1997 laying down guidelines for providing security to private persons. By way of the said G.O., persons were divided into 6 categories. The petitioner falls under the category of "private persons". Clause- C of the G.O. enumerated the general guidelines for providing security and it is envisaged therein that in case of a private person, individual security on threat perception can be provided only on advance payment basis subject to the availability of manpower with the Unit Officer concerned. Sub-clauses (6) and (7) of Clause-C of the said G.O. read as under: "6. A person having criminal background should not be given security except when the criminal case is closed or acquitted against him. Further, in case there is a genuine threat from naxalites of PWG or in case he is holding public office, then specific permission from IGP Intelligence, who is the Nodal authority should be taken before providing him. 7. In respect of factional groups, security should not be given to the affected parties since provision of security to one faction and ignoring requests of other faction is not proper and wherever it is felt necessary to give necessary security to such persons, the reasons for doing so shall be recorded by the competent authority." Clause-E provides that a Security Review Committee comprising of Joint director, S.I.B.; Deputy Director, S.I.B.; D.I.G (Security); D.I G. (Intelligence); Joint Secretary (Protocol) and I.G.P. (Grey Hounds) as members and I.G.P. (Intelligence) as Nodal Authority will meet twice in a year in order to review the threat perception. From the facts borne out by the record, it is clear that the petitioner claims to be belonging to a political party. The guidelines contained in the abovementioned G.O. clearly envisage that persons with criminal background and those, who are part of factional groups, are generally not entitled to personal security. The exceptions carved out under the said G.O. are that if criminal cases were closed resulting in the acquittal of the person or when there is a genuine threat from the naxalites, then security should be provided to such persons. In the impugned order, it is specifically stated that on a review of threat perception, it is found that the petitioner is not having any such threat perception from extremists and his political rivalries in Kadapa District as the faction activities are dormant in that area. In as much as there was threat perception in 2005, which necessitated the State to provide personal security to the petitioner and the same was continued till 29.3.2011, and on account of the same, he cannot now claim continuance of the same without having due regard to the changed circumstances. This Court in the case of Katasani Rami Reddy Vs. Govt. of AP, (1998 Crl.L.J. 3897), while dealing with a similar and identical issue, held as under: “whether security is to be provided to the individual or not by the State is dependent upon the threat perception with regard to that individual, and what is the amount of threat and whether the threat is real or imaginary, and in case there is threat, what is the degree of the threat to an individual's life, cannot be considered either by this Court or by any other agency other than the police force itself. Police is the competent authority and it is equipped with facilities like intelligence services to come to a conclusion about threat perception of an individual. Therefore, whenever an application is made before a District Superintendent of Police by an individual for providing personal security to him, while disposing of such an application the District Superintendent of Police should invariably record his finding with regard to the threat perception. Once such a finding is recorded, it will be open for such an individual to agitate the matter further, if the concerned Superintendent of Police does not come to correct finding with regard to threat perception. This will also enable the District Superintendent of Police to decide as to how much personal security is needed by an individual. Otherwise, unless he knows the level of the threat he cannot be able to decide the matter. It is also well known that, some times threat to one's life can remain life long depending upon the circumstances and the incidents which are relatable with respect to such an individual, but some times threat to one's life may be temporary and in such a case continuous security may not be needed. Therefore, whenever personal security is provided to a person it must be constantly reviewed by the concerned Superintendent of Police and when on the basis of information available with him he genuinely feels that the threat has vanished, he may recall the security” In the light of the said decision, the Security Review Committee after meticulous scrutiny of the threat perception came to the conclusion to withdraw the security to the petitioner and therefore, for the reasons narrated hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the respondents are justified in coming to the conclusion that the threat perception against the petitioner does not subsist warranting continuance of the security gunmen to him. Pertinent to note, though Article 21 of the Constitution of India ordains that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, no person can claim as of right that the State should provide him with personal security to ensure that his life is protected. Any police force or any law enforcing agency is primarily meant for ensuring rule of law and law and order for the welfare of the public at large. When there is a conflict between social needs and the individual needs, the former gets priority. In that view of the matter and for the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 25th April, 2011. Msnro