AP High Court Restores Security Cover Of YSR Congress Leader Katasani Reddy, Cites Inadequacy In Threat Perception Report

Highlighting fallacies in his security threat perspective report, a Justice Harinath N said,

“The security threat perspective report is submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the identification of sources of threat indicates that there is no threat from any individual or from any group. The report did not consider the representation of the petitioner submitted to the 2nd respondent categorically indicating the threat perspective from one M.Rajasekhar. The same appears to have not been considered by the Security Review Committee. The security review committee meeting was conducted on 16.07.2024 and thereafter the threat perception report dated 27.04.2025 is submitted.”

The Court further added,

“This Court has endeavored to verify whether the information provided by the respondents in the report is sufficient to conclude that the respondents have conducted a meticulous job before submitting the report. As seen from the report, the review committee ought to have done an objective assessment of all the facts and circumstances, considering the regular movements of the petitioner on a day to day basis, the report is silent on the comprehensive study conducted before concluding that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. This Court is also handicapped with a given report to analyze and conclude that the opinion of the committee is based on objective assessment of facts and circumstances relating to the threat perception of the petitioner.”

Facts:

The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the action of the State government in abruptly withdrawing security (2+2 PSOs) of the petitioner, who was a six time MLA from the Panyam Assembly Constituency. The petitioner had submitted that owing to his party losing power in the elections, his father along with six family members were hacked to death in broad daylight while travelling by a bus and his brother was also killed by the rival group. He was provided Government security from 1985 till 18.07.2024, and the same was extended even when he lost the Assembly election. The petitioner apprehended danger to his life from one M.Raja Sekhar, who was a leader of the party opposing the party of the petitioner.

While the petitioner made several representations, his case was not considered. In light of the prevailing danger to his life, he asserted that the action of the respondents was contrary to the guidelines issued by the High Court and was willing to meet the financial expenditure for extending the Personal Security Officers (PSOs).

However, the respondents claimed that the incident of hacking of family members of the petitioner occurred 40 years ago and thereafter no incidents had been reported. Additionally, the respondents denied that M.Rajasekhar publicly announced to see the end of the petitioner had ever occurred. It was further submitted that a comprehensive assessment of threat perspective was carried out and upon evaluation of all relevant materials and inputs, it was concluded, with reasons recorded, that there was no existing threat to the life of the petitioner, either on political or personal grounds.

As the security threat perspective report was devoid of an objective assessment of the prevailing threat to life of the petitioner, the Court ordered the security cover of the petitioner to be restored on payment basis and a direction was given to the respondents to obtain fresh threat perception of the petitioner from the concerned Unit Officer.

Case Title: Katasani Rambhupal Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order