Former Andhra Minister Loses Bid to Restore Personal Security Officers; Telangana HC Finds No Threat Perception
The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition by former minister Jalagam Prasad Rao, holding that the withdrawal of his 1+1 PSO security cover was a valid administrative decision based on a reviewed threat assessment and that no person holds a vested right to continued security cover regardless of prevailing threat perception.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi, sitting singly at the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, dismissed Writ Petition No. 22636 of 2026 filed by Jalagam Prasad Rao, a former minister of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the withdrawal of his personal security arrangement of 1+1 Personal Security Officers (PSOs). The impugned order was issued on 9 July 2026 vide C.No.170/CSB-KMM/2026 by the Commissioner of Police (the sixth respondent). The court found that the Security Review Committee and the Commissioner of Police had considered both official threat perception reports and the petitioner's own representation before concluding that no present threat existed. With the petitioner politically inactive for 32 years and residing in Hyderabad, the court declined to interfere with the administrative decision.
Petitioner's Background and Repeated Withdrawals of Security
Jalagam Prasad Rao is the son of late Sri Jalagam Vengal Rao, former Chief Minister of United Andhra Pradesh, Home Minister, and Union Minister. The petitioner himself served as a minister in the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh from 1990 to 1994, twice elected as MLA from Sathupalli Constituency, holding portfolios of Small Scale Industries and Panchayat Raj.
The petitioner's case rested on the claim that his family has remained under constant threat from extremists owing to anti-extremist measures taken by his father and himself during their respective tenures in public office. On that basis, the State had provided him with personal security for an extended period.
The security cover was withdrawn once before, in 2024. At that time, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 4427 of 2024 before the same court, and by order dated 20 February 2024, the court directed restoration of the security. That writ petition was subsequently closed after the respondents implemented the court's interim directions.
In January 2024, around the time of the first withdrawal, the petitioner received WhatsApp calls from mobile number +91 7816035966 where the caller spoke in a threatening manner and on 18 February 2024 at 12:59 PM sent a message demanding Rs. 1 crore, stating that the demand was “in the interest of your safety.” The petitioner relied on this message as evidence of a live threat to his life.
Security was restored thereafter. However, by orders dated 27 June 2026, the Commissioner of Police again withdrew the security cover, invoking G.O.Rt.No.644 dated 13 March 1997.
Prior Round of Litigation and the Impugned Order
Aggrieved by the June 2026 withdrawal, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 20775 of 2026. In that petition, the court directed the Commissioner of Police to give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and to submit a representation on his threat perception. The petitioner submitted a detailed memorandum on 6 July 2026 and personally appeared before the sixth respondent on 8 July 2026 to explain the threats he perceived.
Despite this process, the sixth respondent passed the impugned order dated 9 July 2026 withdrawing the security cover without, according to the petitioner, adequately considering his representation. That order prompted the present writ petition, W.P. No. 22636 of 2026, seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the order illegal and arbitrary and to direct reinstatement of the 1+1 PSO arrangement.
The Legal Contention on Security for Political Personalities
Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And ors., reported at 2021 Supreme(All) 450 : 2022 AIR(All)(NOC) 190. That judgment drew a distinction between persons who face threats arising from private disputes — who cannot claim State-funded security — and political personalities who face real threats from terrorists, militants, fundamentalist outfits, or organised criminal gangs on account of work done in the national interest. The judgment reasoned that harm to such individuals would affect the prestige of the Government and diminish State authority by signalling to the public that if the State cannot protect those who work for the nation, it cannot protect ordinary citizens either.
Counsel pointed the court to the petitioner's representation in which he stated that he regularly travels to interior rural tribal areas of his constituency and engages with Koya, Konda Reddy, and other tribal communities, and that this work exposes him to threats from anti-social elements who target those representing marginalised tribal sections.
State's Position: No Specific Threat, Objective Committee Review
The Government Pleader for Home furnished written instructions setting out the State's case in detail. The core submission was that the petitioner holds no vested or enforceable legal right to continuation of personal security arrangements regardless of prevailing threat perception, and that security cover is purely an administrative measure subject to periodic review.
On the process followed, the State submitted that the Director General, Intelligence, Telangana, had by fax/TSPMS message dated 1 October 2025 asked the Commissioner of Police, Khammam to furnish the latest threat perception reports for all protectees within the Khammam Police Commissionerate. Reports were submitted for all protectees including the petitioner. The Security Review Committee met on 1 June 2026 and, after considering those reports, decided to withdraw security from several protectees including the petitioner. The decision was therefore not selective.
A threat perception report from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Counter Special Branch (CSB), Khammam was also filed before the court in a sealed cover. The State submitted that the ACP's report was specifically considered before the impugned order was passed.
On the petitioner's claimed WhatsApp threat, the State produced that the suspect mobile number 7816035966 is registered in the name of Madhela Mani, son of Madhela Guravaiah, of Venkateswarapuram, Nellore, who works as a tailor and has no connection with Maoists or any other extremist organisation.
The State also placed before the court that as of now, armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) are not active in Telangana or its neighbouring states of Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh, and that as per the latest intelligence inputs, there is no specific threat to the petitioner's life from CPI (Maoist) or any other left-wing extremist outfit.
On the petitioner's present circumstances, the State noted that he resides in Hyderabad and visits Khammam only occasionally; that there are no public declarations, coercive texts, or clandestine documents indicating intent to physically harm him; and that the petitioner himself has not lodged any complaints, representations, or informal notifications with local police regarding threatening behaviour from any individual or group. Security of 1+1 PSOs had in fact been provided to the petitioner during his visits to his native village of Bayannagudem, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District, reflecting that the State had not acted arbitrarily in the first instance.
Court's Reasoning
Justice Madhavi Devi considered the rival contentions and the sealed-cover threat perception report submitted by the ACP. The court held that the Security Review Committee and the Commissioner of Police had considered the threat perception reports of the officials as well as the petitioner's own inputs before concluding that there was no threat to the petitioner's life.
The court accepted the State's submission that no person holds a vested or enforceable legal right to continuation of personal security irrespective of prevailing threat perception.
The court noted that the petitioner was a minister during 1990 to 1994 and had “remained inactive in politics for the past 32 years” and is not active in politics as of the date of the order. The court also noted that he appears to be residing in Hyderabad and visiting his native village only occasionally.
Having regard to all these factors, including the fact that the petitioner's representation had been considered and a personal hearing granted before the impugned order was passed, the court held the impugned order to be a valid administrative decision taken after considering all aspects of the matter. The court found no ground to interfere.
Outcome
Writ Petition No. 22636 of 2026 was dismissed on 16 July 2026. No order as to costs was made. All pending miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition were also dismissed.