HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 9805 OF 2011 . DATED 25th April, 2011 BETWEEN B.Karunakar Reddy …Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.9805 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in withdrawing the security provided to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner was an active participant in the students organizations as well as in various activities relating to social work and got attracted towards the late former Chief Minister Dr.Y.S.Rajasekhar Reddy, who was the then Member of Legislative Assembly of Pulivendula, Kadapa Distridct. It is stated that he was appointed as one of the members of the committee which was constituted to conduct talks with the Maoists (Naxal) groups i.e. CPI (ML) held from 15.8.2004 to 18.8.2004 by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh. From that day onwards, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has provided security to the petitioner with (PSOs) 4 + 4 to protect his life. It is stated that the said protection continued up to the death of Dr.Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 2.9.2009 and thereafter the same was reduced to 2+2 in the month of November, 2009 and again it was reduced to 1+1 from October, 2010 and ultimately by proceedings dated 13.3.2011 the remaining security 1+1 is also withdrawn. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is inter alia stated that after careful consideration of the latest threat perception report, the Security Review Committee after following the guidelines in G.O.Rt.No. 655, dated 13.3.1997, has taken a decision to withdraw the security provided to the petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit in as much as the activities of CPI Maoists have been totally curtailed in Chittoor, there is no specific threat perception to the life and limb of the petitioner from any of the extremists. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that total withdrawal of the security provided to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and in violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that there is threat perception to the life and limb of the petitioner from the Maoist organizations which were banned by the Central Government after the talks held in the year 2004. He further stated that the decision of withdrawing the security is obviously politically motivated and to harass the petitioner. Perused the case file. 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 provisions 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 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 and he was one of the members of the Committee constituted by the then Government in the year 2004 to conduct talks with the CPI Maoist groups. 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 threat perception from extremists, as the activities of CPI Maoists are dormant in Chittoor area. In as much as there was a serious threat perception in 2004, which necessitated the State to provide personal security to the petitioner and the same was continued gradually reducing strength of gunmen till 13.3.2011 and he cannot claim continuance of the same without 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 to the petitioner 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