Can’t Make Out Case Based On Media Reports Or Youtube Channels News: Andhra Pradesh HC Denies Security To Former AAG Alleging Threats From Politicians

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to provide security to former Additional Advocate General (AAG) P. Sudhakara Reddy who alleged threats from political leaders.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by Reddy, seeking to declare the action of the police authorities to withdraw the security in the form of 2+2 without any prior notice or any objective exercise as arbitrary and illegal.

A Single Bench of Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi said, “The petitioner cannot make out any case relying on media reports, or You Tube Channels News. Those reports are only hear-say evidence. None of the allegations in report can be proved. The media reports are mere hear-say and inadmissible as evidence. There is no material to substantiate the allegations of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no material placed before the Court in support of the allegations of the petitioner.”

The Bench noted that the threat perception is a dynamic phenomenon and never permanent, therefore, it is reviewed periodically.

Senior Advocate D. Prakash Reddy and Advocate M. Bala Krishna appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Factual Background -

The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to continue to provide the security personnel in the form 2 + 2. The petitioner was a former AAG for the Andhra Pradesh State. He contended that he was allotted cases pertaining to 18 Departments which included most sensitive cases involving the Chief Minister and other leaders of political parties. He handled those cases on behalf of the State. It was alleged by him that he was targeted by the then opposition leaders and others and some section of media also targeted him as he appeared against such leaders. It became difficult for him to appear on behalf of the State and, therefore, the State accorded 2 + 2 security to him while he was serving as AAG for the State to discharge his duties.

The son of Chief Minister, against whom the petitioner represented on behalf of State, made some entries in a book called as “The Red Book” and he openly declared in public meetings about mentioning of some names in the Red Book, and that after coming to power, he will not leave them unpunished. The information was published through media channels and the petitioner’s name stood third, as the Chief Minister was arrested in Skill Development Case. At the same time, the anti-social elements were physically targeting the persons, who were not liked by the ruling party. The petitioner also apprehended physical attack. Hence, he approached the High Court seeking reliefs.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “The security of individual is given highest priority by the State. If there are inputs that there is imminent danger to the life and security of the an individual, security cover is provided immediately. This Court in the case of Katasani Rami Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh held that “threat to one’s life may be temporary and in such a case continuous security may not be needed. Whenever personal security is provided to a person, it must be constantly reviewed by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the basis of information available with him. If he genuinely feels that threat is vanished, he may recall the security.”

The Court said that the petitioner without efforts to approach concerned authorities, cannot approach the High Court directly, prejudging the issue that opinion of the review committee headed by several senior IPS officers would be an empty formality.

“I am afraid if such petitions are allowed, every person will directly approach this Court, without any efforts to approach the competent authority for security. … Admittedly subsequent to fling of Writ Petition, the State Level Review Committee i.e., Security Review Committee (S.R.C.) on 16.07.2024 reviewed the threat perception of the petitioner and came to an opinion that there is no specific threat to his life from any individual any group. Therefore, there is no need to provide security”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the communication of decision of the Security Review Committee to withdraw the security to the petitioner in the absence of any specific threat from any individual or group, without furnishing actual contents of the report, amounts to valid communication.

“Threat perception is not a static concept. It is dynamic and ever changing. There is a self-imposed restriction on this Court in entering into the disputed areas of fact. … The burden castes upon the petitioner to show that the decision making process of Security Review Committee is vitiated or that the decision is based upon an incorrect appreciation of facts”, it also remarked.

The Court said that when the material relied upon by the petitioner does not show that the decision making process is vitiated or that the order is passed for extraneous reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

“No doubt that the petitioner was granted security all these years. But that by itself does not mean that it should continue for ever, more particularly, in the light of opinion of Security Review Committee that there was no threat perception to the petitioner”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title- P. Sudhakara Reddy v. The State of AP & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment