Introduction:

The Telangana High Court, in Jalagam Prasad Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors. (W.P. No. 22636 of 2026), reaffirmed that no individual possesses a vested or enforceable legal right to continue receiving State-provided personal security in the absence of a genuine and subsisting threat perception. Justice T. Madhavi Devi dismissed a writ petition filed by former united Andhra Pradesh Minister Jalagam Prasad Rao challenging the withdrawal of his 1+1 Personal Security Officers (PSOs). The Court held that the decision to provide or withdraw security is an administrative function based on periodic threat assessment and judicial interference is unwarranted unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary or illegal.

The petitioner, son of former Chief Minister Jalagam Vengal Rao, contended that his family had long remained under threat from extremist groups due to his late father’s anti-extremist measures and his own political career. He asserted that his security cover had earlier been restored following High Court intervention and that he had subsequently received threatening WhatsApp messages demanding money. Despite these claims, the Security Review Committee and the Commissioner of Police concluded that there was no present threat warranting continuation of security, leading to the present challenge before the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner argued that the withdrawal of his security cover ignored the genuine threats faced by him because of his family’s political background. He submitted that after his security was withdrawn earlier, he received WhatsApp messages demanding ₹1 crore and threatening harm if the amount was not paid. According to him, these incidents demonstrated that the threat perception continued to exist.

He further contended that he frequently visited his native village and tribal areas where extremist influence had historically been present. Relying on an Allahabad High Court decision, he argued that political personalities facing threats from terrorists or extremist organisations are entitled to State protection. He maintained that despite submitting a detailed representation and attending a personal hearing, the authorities failed to properly consider his case before withdrawing the security cover.

The State opposed the petition by submitting that security arrangements are based entirely on periodic threat assessments and cannot continue indefinitely. It informed the Court that the Security Review Committee reviewed the petitioner’s case along with several others and found no current or specific threat requiring continuation of security.

The Government further submitted that intelligence agencies had reported no threat from CPI (Maoist) or any other extremist organisation. It also clarified that the WhatsApp number allegedly used to threaten the petitioner belonged to a tailor from Nellore and had no connection with extremist groups. The State emphasized that the petitioner had remained inactive in politics for more than three decades, resided primarily in Hyderabad, and visited his native village only occasionally.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court upheld the decision of the Security Review Committee and dismissed the writ petition.

Justice T. Madhavi Devi observed that the authorities had considered intelligence reports, police inputs and the petitioner’s own representations before arriving at the conclusion that there was no existing threat to his life. After examining the threat perception report produced in a sealed cover, the Court found no reason to doubt the administrative assessment.

The Court held that personal security arrangements are not permanent entitlements but administrative measures based upon prevailing security conditions. No person can claim a vested or enforceable legal right to continued security irrespective of the current threat perception.

The Court also noted that although the petitioner had served as a Minister between 1990 and 1994, he had remained inactive in politics for nearly 32 years. His limited public activities and occasional visits to his native village did not justify continuation of State-funded security in the absence of credible intelligence indicating any present danger.

Rejecting the petitioner’s challenge, the Court observed that the Government had followed due process by granting him a personal hearing and considering his representation before passing the impugned order. Since the decision was based on expert assessment and relevant materials, it could not be termed arbitrary or unreasonable.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the withdrawal of the petitioner’s personal security cover, reiterating that security arrangements must always depend on periodic threat assessments rather than past political status or previous office held.