Court Rules Security is an Administrative Measure, No Vested Right for Continuation
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Jalagam Prasad Rao seeking the restoration of his personal security cover. The court, led by Justice Smt. T. Madhavi Devi, concluded that security cover is an administrative measure subject to periodic review and does not confer any vested or enforceable legal right to individuals, irrespective of their past political roles or perceived threats.
The petitioner, Jalagam Prasad Rao, son of the late Jalagam Vengal Rao, a former Chief Minister of United Andhra Pradesh, argued that his family's political history and past efforts against extremism warranted continued security. Rao contended that his security was withdrawn without adequate inquiry or prior notice, violating principles of natural justice.
The Telangana government's response, presented by the Government Pleader for Home, highlighted that Rao’s security was initially provided based on his political status and past threat perceptions. However, an updated threat assessment conducted by the Security Review Committee found no current specific threats to his safety. Consequently, Rao’s security was withdrawn, a decision the court upheld as lawful and justified.
Justice Madhavi Devi emphasized that security provision is a purely administrative decision, contingent on prevailing threat assessments. The court noted that Rao had been inactive in politics for over three decades and currently resides in Hyderabad, with only occasional visits to his native village, which further diminished his claim for continued protection.
The court also considered a previous case cited by the petitioner, where security was deemed necessary for political personalities facing real threats due to their public roles. However, the court found no parallel in Rao’s situation, given the lack of current, specific threats or ongoing political activity.
Ultimately, the High Court's decision underscores the principle that security arrangements are not a right but a measure based on objective threat assessments. The petition was dismissed, with no costs ordered, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
Bottom line:-
Security cover provided to an individual is an administrative measure based on periodic threat assessment, and there is no vested or enforceable legal right to demand its continuation irrespective of the prevailing threat perception.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
Jalagam Prasad Rao v. State of Telangana, (Telangana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2946741
