IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.25121, 30216, 30633, 30825, 33668, 33734 and 33954 of 2014 BETWEEN Yadamakanti Rosi Reddy and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS The Government of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. P. VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY MR. RAVISHANKAR JANDHYALA MR. K. SURESH REDDY MS. KUMARI G.K.V.D.
MR. PARSA ANANTHA NAGESWAR RAO MR. P. NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL (TG) SPECIAL GP FOR HOME (TG) The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
All these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners with a common grievance against withdrawal of security provided to them by the then State Government.
2. In almost all the writ petitions, the order impugned, therefore, is a notice issued by the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District informing the respective petitioner that the Security Review Committee (SRC) in its meeting held on 03.07.2014 has decided to withdraw the security in the absence of any specific threat from any individual or group and as per the guidelines issued under G.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC.B) Department dated 13.03.1997. In view of that the respective petitioner was informed that he is not entitled to any security in accordance with law. In respect of writ petitions relating to twin cities similar order is passed by the Commissioner of Police.
3. So far as WP.No.25121 of 2014 is concerned, when the writ petition was heard on 01.09.2014, this Court directed that the security provided will continue till the next date of hearing and thereafter, the said interim order was continued from time to time and is still in force. In all other writ petitions, however, there is no interim order. In each of the writ petitions, counter affidavit is filed by respondents supporting the order impugned.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home representing the State of Telangana.
5. One of the common contentions of all the learned counsel for the petitioners is that each of the petitioners was provided security either at the expense of the State or on payment basis and the security was provided keeping in view threat perception to each individual petitioner. Petitioners also submit that the threat perception, which was existent at the time of granting security, continues even now, in view of the fact that all the petitioners are public representatives and are required to move about and interact with the members of the pubic and as such, it cannot be said that there is no threat perception existing. Petitioners also state that they have been subjected to humiliation by withdrawing security in view of the change of the political scenario in the State and thereby, they contend that merely because the present ruling party is in power, the security of the petitioners, which was being provided for long number of years by the then State Government, is suddenly withdrawn. Petitioners also contend that in case of some of the petitioners security was provided on the ground that they were under imminent threat from the Maoists and as such, that threat continues even as on today, as the Maoists continue to target the politicians, particularly, those who are associated with the previous ruling party. Hence, petitioners contend that withdrawal of security of the petitioners is purely on account of political rivalry between the petitioners and the present ruling party.
6. In one of the writ petitions, it is alleged that the petitioner himself was subject to threat on telephone and there was stone pelting by unknown persons on his house causing damage to the car, which was already reported to the police and an FIR was, accordingly, registered and is pending. In another writ petition, it is alleged that Maoists have attacked a nearby village to the petitioner’s village and one of the villagers was shot dead by the Maoists on 12.10.2014, for which also a crime was registered in FIR.No.84 of 2014 before the Police Station Venkatapuram, Khammam District on 14.10.2014. The aforesaid instances, in particular cases, are highlighted by the learned counsel for the respective petitioner on the ground that the events, which have occurred, as described above, clearly establish that the threat perception against the respective petitioner continues and as such, withdrawal of security is wholly arbitrary and liable to be interfered with by this Court.
7. Learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General contends that in terms of the directions in WP.No.291 of 1995 dated 14.10.1996 the Government has framed guidelines under G.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC.B) Department dated 13.03.1997 and the salient features of the said policy are as follows:
a) A private person may be provided individual security on threat perception only on advance payment basis subject to availability of man power with the unit officer concerned.
b) Constitutional Functionaries and Statutory Functionaries have to be provided security at the state’s cost, based on threat perception.
c) A person having criminal back ground should not be given security. In case there is genuine threat from naxalites of PWG or in case he is holding public office, then specific permission from Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, who is the Nodal Authority, should be taken before providing him.
d) 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 security to such person, the reasons for doing so shall be recorded by the competent authority.
e) The leader of political parties who do not occupy any “public” office recognize by law are not entitled for protection at the cost of the state.
f) The security given by the Unit Officer or by the Nodal Authority will be upto a maximum period of 3 months. Fresh threat perception report should be called for every 3 months and action taken as per the report.
8. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the SRC comprises 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 (Greyhounds) as members and I.G.P (Intelligence) as Nodal Authority/Convener. SRC meets twice in a year and takes up and considers all applications including fresh applications in accordance with the guidelines. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the threat perception is evaluated by SRC periodically and in case of petitioners, appropriate decision is made by SRC after taking into consideration the inputs received from various sources and on SRC being satisfied that there is no threat perception existing to the respective petitioners, the security provided earlier to them was withdrawn.
9. Learned Special Government Pleader also emphatically denied that the decision to withdraw the security has any political overtones and submits that that irrespective of the position or status of an individual, the threat perception was examined objectively by SRC and appropriate decision is taken depending upon the inputs received. Learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, submits that such decision cannot be impugned on the ground of any arbitrariness, as the High Ranking Officials have examined the material before them objectively and only, thereafter, the decision to continue or withdraw is taken and that is communicated to the concerned person.
10. Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that during the last six months since the present Government is in Office there has not been any instance involving any of the petitioners, which supports the decision of SRC. Learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, submits that irrespective of political affiliations of an individual, the SRC has assessed the threat perception also by taking into consideration the proximity of threat existing at the time of providing security and the threat perception as on the date of review.
11. In view of these rival contentions, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce the report of SRC. Accordingly, the said report is produced before this Court in a sealed cover and during the further hearing, I have seen the said report. However, before adverting to the said proceedings, it is necessary to notice G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 13.03.1997, referred to above, which provides the guidelines, which were considered by SRC.
12. The Division Bench of this Court in G. SUBAS REDDY v. STATE OF AP[1] (WP.No.291 of 1995 and batch dated 14.10.1996) laid down the legal position as follows:
1. The State has a duty to provide necessary security to the constitutional functionaries and if there is expense upon the said security, the Government can do so out of the funds of the exchequer of the State;
2. … 3. Depending upon the threat perception in respect of such statutory functionaries, which are discharging duties on behalf of the State, the Government may take a policy decision and provide security to such personnel to such extent as decided by the Government and the expenses for the same can legitimately be borne by the State exchequer;
4. …
5. Individual or individuals, who apprehend threat to peace and to his or their lives can approach the contempt authority at the first instance at the district level and make application for deployment of such force for maintaining peace and for protection of his or their lives and liberty.
On such application being made, the competent authority shall be duty bound to promptly make suitable orders without any delay …
6. Any person or persons, who, however, apprehension of threat to their life or his or her property from the Government, its servants or agents, in exceptional cases, can approach the Court for suitable orders ...”
Accordingly, G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 13.03.1997 was issued in terms of the above order.
13. In terms of the aforesaid G.O., there are various categories of functionaries, which are classified into Constitutional functionaries, statutory functionaries, visiting dignitary and private persons. It is also provided that persons, who are classified under Z+, Z, Y, X, or X-2 category either by the Union Government or other State Governments or by SRC of this State are referred to as categorized persons and it is provided that they should be given protection depending upon threat in Andhra Pradesh. The Superintendent of Police at the Districts and the Commissioner of Police of the City are described as Unit Officers/ Competent Authorities at the District level and Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) and the Government of Andhra Pradesh are the competent authority at the State level. The decision as to security is required to be taken at the unit level by the Unit Officers, who are competent authorities and the Superintendents of Police in the district and the Commissioner of Police in the City are required to conduct a review meeting once in every month and review threat perception and take appropriate decision for continuation or withdrawal of security and the minutes of the review meeting are required to be sent to IGP (Intelligence) every month.
14. The G.O., further, provides guidelines for providing appropriate security and it is also provided that while it is the duty of the State to protect every citizen, specific security cover to any individual can be provided based on his threat perception. The provision of security to different categories of functionaries such as Constitutional functionaries and Statutory functionaries are required to be provided security at the State’s cost based on threat perception. Similarly, providing security in the case of political leaders during election period and with regard to persons, who have criminal background or are from factional groups, should be considered depending upon the opinion of Nodal authority and competent authority. Thus, briefly, the G.O. sets out the manner in which the different categories of persons are to be provided security by the State. It also provides that at State level, SRC comprising of officers, as mentioned above, is constituted and it will meet twice in a year and perform all the functions envisaged in the G.O. and consider the individual applications in terms of the guidelines in the said G.O.
15. The proceedings of the meeting of SRC held on 03.07.2014 shows various aspects in terms of G.O. aforesaid including compliance report about the action taken as per the instructions issued in the proceedings of the meeting was required to be sent by respective unit officers in the proforma prescribed. Notice withdrawing the security in particular cases was also prescribed and the text of the impugned order in almost all the cases is based upon the notice prescribed.
The meeting on 03.07.2014 was presided over by IGP (Intelligence) Telangana State, Hyderabad and various other officers viz. JD, SIB, Hyderabad; IGP, ISW, Hyderabad and Incharge Greyhounds; IGP, SIB, Hyderabad and Incharge CISL along with special invitee the Joint Commissioner of Police, SBCT, Hyderabad, have participated in the meeting. The meeting also took note of basic profile and guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.655 dated 13.03.1997 and analysis was made regarding increase in the number of protectees and the PSO’s provided to them over the preceding years. SRC was also apprised of acute shortage of manpower for security duties and need to objectively assess the threat perception. SRC, thereafter, proceeded to consider the various categories of protectees viz. Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Members of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Union Ministers, Members of Legislative Council, Members of Legislative Assembly, Ministers of Telangana State, Speaker of the Assembly and Chairman of he Council of Telangana State; security to categorized protectees;
DCCB Chairperson, Ex-members of Parliament and Ex-MLA; other protectees (non-categorized); Police Officers; Collectors and District Magistrates and other categories covered by Court cases were all separately considered by the SRC and appropriate remarks are indicated in the last column as per the decision of SRC. The report, therefore, is in a tabular form mentioning category, name of the person, political affiliation of such person, existing security arrangement and the decision of SRC 2014.
16. The consideration of cases relating the petitioners in this batch of cases is found under the category of security to other protectees (non- categorized) under Items 60, 76, 79 etc. and depending upon the individual concerned, in some cases the security is continued whereas in some cases it is downgraded and in other cases, the decision to withdraw the security was also taken. Some of the fresh cases were also considered by SRC on the basis of individual representations and appropriate decision was taken. In some of the cases, where the Court directed continuation of security, the security was continued.
17. The report of SRC, therefore, clearly establishes that each individual case was assessed and appropriate decision is taken.
The inputs or the material or the discreet enquiry on the basis of which such decision is taken by SRC is, therefore, required to be accepted, as there is no reason to doubt that the high ranking officials, who are members of SRC would provide or deny security, in a given case, merely on the basis of directions of ruling party in power and as such, the general allegations made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot, therefore, be accepted.
18. It is also necessary to specifically deal with WP.No.30216 of 2014, as the petitioner has made extensive references in the affidavit alleging that the said petitioner is politically opposed towards the present Chief Minister of the State of Telangana and has even proceeded to attribute malafides to the IG (Intelligence) on the ground that the father-in-law of the said officer was a Polit Bureau Member of the ruling party. Suffice it to note that though allegations are made against the individuals in the affidavit none of them are impleaded as parties to this writ petition and as such, the said allegations cannot be taken note of. The report of SRC shows that under the caption of security of other protectees (non categorized), SRC has considered the cases of 119 individuals and the aforesaid petitioner’s case was considered under Item 79 showing that he was provided 1+1 PSO’s. However, a decision was taken to withdraw the security.
19. In the counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Medak District, in the aforesaid writ petition, it is stated that in the month of December 2013 while considering the request of the petitioner and in view of the complaints lodged by the petitioner against the present Chief Minister of Telangana State and his family members, 1+1 security was provided to him temporarily till taking appropriate decision is taken by the next SRC. Counter affidavit, further, states that after meticulous scrutiny of the threat perception of the petitioner, SRC came to the conclusion to withdraw the security. The allegation of bias against the Additional DGP (Intelligence) was denied and pointed out that the SRC comprises of various other high ranking officials. The counter affidavit, further, states that the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the local police or Superintendent of Police, Medak with a fresh application with information of inputs of threat to him from any individual or group and then the case will be considered on fresh threat perception on merits. It is also pointed out that security cover to the petitioner was withdrawn on 18.08.2014. However, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition only after two months of withdrawal of security.
20. It is also necessary to notice that a batch of writ petitions with similar grievance was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP.No.23563 of 2014 and batch dated 26.09.2014.
After considering the entire matter, this Court felt and directed as follows:
“… I feel that the ends of justice would be better served by preserving liberty to each of the petitioners/protectees to draw up an appropriate representation calling the attention of the review committee as to why the security cover existing earlier should be continued and should not be withdrawn so that the review committee in turn would objectively reexamine the entire exercise and take appropriate final decision …”
21. The case of the petitioners herein was not part of the said batch. However, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the said order in support of their respective cases. Keeping in view the circumstances, as discussed above and that the last of the security review meeting was held on 03.07.2014, in my view, the next meeting of the review committee would fall due after six months of the last meeting. Hence, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
1. Petitioners would be at liberty to make appropriate representations duly mentioning the latest threat/inputs relating to threats, if any, by approaching the respective unit officers.
2. As and when such representations are received, the respective unit officers shall examine the same and forward the same to the Security Review Committee along with their comments.
3. The Security Review Committee shall consider all such representations together with the comments of the unit offices and all other material and inputs at its command and taken appropriate decision in the matter and communicate the same to the respective petitioner.
4. Interim order granted in WP.No.25121 of 2014 shall continue till the aforesaid exercise is completed As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 30, 2014 DSK
[1] 1997 (2) ALT 694