Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bhoomireddy Ramgopala Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 15 July, 2019
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7822 OF 2019
ORDER:
1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, challenges the notice bearing C.No.20/RI-DSW/KDP/2019, dated 18.06.2019, issued by respondent No.2, withdrawing the security provided to the petitioner in spite of the threat perception to his life, and seeks for a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned notice, dated 18.06.2019, as un- constitutional and for a consequential direction to restore security to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner's case is thus:
(a) The petitioner, who is an active participant in Telugu Desam Party (TDP) activities since 1998, was appointed as Director, Leadership Training Centre, and in that capacity, he staged several agitations and dharnas against the atrocities of the then ruling party in Pulivendula of Kadapa district and thereby the opposite party members bore personal grudge against him. While so, he filed nomination as candidate for Vice-Chairman of Pulivendula Municipality, for which the ruling party leaders hatched a plan to eliminate him through some antisocial elements and, in furtherance of their plan, they have demolished his house on 18.10.2005 and set fire causing huge loss to a tune of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner;
(b) As there was intensive and imminent threat to his life, he made several representations to the police requesting to provide protection UDPR,J 2 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 with gunmen. Accordingly, he was provided with gunmen on 19.06.2006, which was extended up to 21.08.2006, and later withdrawn. Hence, he filed writ petition No.18029 of 2006, in which this Court gave an interim direction in W.P.M.P. No.22635 of 2006, dated 01.05.2007, directing the respondent police to provide the gunman. The respondent therein filed W.V.M.P. No.1050 of 2008 seeking vacation of the interim order and, after hearing the arguments, the said petition was dismissed by confirming the interim order. As no appeal was preferred against the said order, the same became final.
(c) The further case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 issued the notice bearing C.No.115/RI-KDP/2014, dated 11.08.2014, informing that the Security Review Committee has decided to withdraw his security. Questioning the same, he filed writ petition No.23939 of 2014 and an interim order was passed by this Court on 26.08.2014 directing respondent No.2 herein to provide Armed Security Guards (1+1) and subsequently, basing on the submission made by learned Government Pleader that the petitioner was already provided with 1+1 security and no further orders were necessary, the said writ petition was disposed of on 11.12.2014. Since then, the petitioner was continued with the security at State cost.
(d) While so, respondent No.2 herein issued the impugned notice, dated 18.06.2019, again withdrawing the security without considering the serious threat perception to the life of the petitioner due to change in the political scenario in the State and without considering the fact UDPR,J 3 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 that the rival party people, who joined in the YSR CP, are threatening to do away with his life, and the threat perception is more grave and in aggravated form now, as the petitioner is residing in Pulivendula constituency and leading political activities on behalf of the TDP. The petitioner further submits that Pulivendula constituency is a hypersensitive area and, at this stage, if the impugned notice, dated 18.06.2019, issued by respondent No.2, is allowed to stand and security is withdrawn, there will be danger to the life of the petitioner.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents/State and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
4. The Officer on Special Duty (Dy. Inspector General of Police) Security Wing of Intelligence Department and charged with the responsibility of VIP security in the State of A.P. as well as the member of State Level Security Review Committee of A.P. filed counter-affidavit denying the material allegations and several averments in the writ petition. It is stated, the provision of Personal Security Officers to private persons is regulated by G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997, issued by Home (SC.B) Department. Those guidelines were framed pursuant to the orders of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, wherein it was observed that private persons may be given personal security officers only on payment basis and that the UDPR,J 4 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 provision of personal security officers need not be an automatic obligation of the police department but based on the forces available and the threat perception. Basing on those observations of the High Court, the Government has drafted guidelines as per which the private persons will be provided security taking due approval from the State Level Review Committee.
(a) It is further contended in the counter that as per Sub-Clause 6 clause C of the G.O.Rt. No.655, a person having criminal background should not be given security except when the criminal case is closed or acquitted against him. Further, in case, there is a genuine threat from naxalites of Peoples War Group or in case he is holding public office, then specific permission from I.G.P, Intelligence, who is the nodal authority, should be taken before providing him security. Further, sub-clause 9 of the aforesaid G.O. reads that leaders of political parties, who do not occupy any public office recognized by law, are not entitled for protection at the cost of the State. In the instant case, the petitioner does not occupy a public office as defined under law and he is a private person. Further, there are two criminal cases pending against him. The petitioner is Accused No.4 in Crime No.117 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 188, 353, 332, 307 and 120-B R/w.149 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The petitioner is also Accused No.2 in Crime No.119 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 188, 353 and 120-B R/w.149 of UDPR,J 5 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 I.P.C. In the above two cases, the petitioner was charged with serious offences relating to rioting with dangerous weapons, assault or criminal force on a public servant, causing hurt to public servant and attempt to murder etc., hence, he does not deserve personal security.
(b) It is further contended that the State Level Review Committee called for threat perception report of the petitioner and the same was submitted by respondent No.2, after thorough investigation. In the said report, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner was not facing any imminent threat either by any individual or groups. Hence, it was recommended that the existing security cover of the personal security officers may be withdrawn. Basing on the said threat perception report, the State Level Review Committee in its meeting held on 14.06.2019 recommended for withdrawal of the personal security officers of the petitioner.
(c) It is further submitted that the threat perception is a dynamic phenomenon, which would be reviewed periodically. If there are inputs that there is imminent threat or danger to the life of the petitioner, security cover will be provided immediately. The respondents, thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. The petitioner filed reply-affidavit wherein he stated that Crime Nos.117 and 119 of 2018, pending on the file of Pulivendula police station referred in the counter showing involvement of the petitioner are relating to political issues between two rival parties and separate criminal cases were registered against the rival political party workers UDPR,J 6 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 and, in fact, the petitioner never involved in any sort of criminal case pertaining to moral turpitude or individual faction. The petitioner further contended that subsequent to registration of the above two criminal cases threat perception to him was increased and there is imminent danger to his life as there are more than 100 political party workers involved in each case between the two rival political parties. Moreover, the persons who are the prime accused in the above referred cases i.e., A-1 - Tugutla Madhusudan Reddy and A-3 - Nandyala Hemadri Reddy, who were not holding any public office, were provided gunmen security, whereas the petitioner who is holding the post of Director, Leadership Training Centre of T.D.P. was discriminated. Similarly, one person by name B.N.Brahmananda Reddy, native of Bidimancherla village of Simhadripuram mandal of Pulivendula constituency, who is a YSRCP activist and ex-sarpanch of that village and who involved in various criminal cases i.e., Crime No.35 of 2013 of Simhadripuram police station, which is relating to a double murder case was also provided with gunmen security recently. The petitioner contended that the State Level Review Committee without applying its independent mind submitted the report due to political pressure and will. It is further averred that Pulivendula, wherein the petitioner is residing, is the constituency of the present Hon'ble Chief Minister and there is every apprehension of danger to petitioner's life, while he conducts the political activities in the said constituency. The petitioner has no personal threat from any particular individual but there is imminent threat from rival political party. Due UDPR,J 7 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 to serious threat perception, the petitioner could not move out to conduct political activities of his party without the security of gunmen. He, thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that by virtue of the orders of this Court, security has been extended to the petitioner since 2006, till recently, at the state cost but the security was abruptly withdrawn by virtue of the impugned notice dated 18.06.2019. He would submit that the security review committee has not applied its mind independently and withdrawal of security to the petitioner is a politically motivated act. Learned counsel tried to bolster the claim of the petitioner for security on the grounds that he is a resident of Pulivendula, which is a hypersensitive area being the present Hon'ble Chief Minister's constituency; the petitioner is in active politics and he is a leader of TDP since 1998 and at present he is the Director of Leadership Training Centre and due to his political affiliation, he has constant threat perception from the ruling party leaders and antisocial elements and therefore he deserves security. Learned counsel would contend that the two crimes viz., Crime Nos.117 and 119 of 2018 of Pulivendula police station, wherein the petitioner is one of the accused, are relating to political issues between two rival parties and separate criminal cases were registered against the rival political party workers also and therefore those two crimes cannot be taken into consideration to deprive security to the petitioner.
UDPR,J 8 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 He was never involved in any sort of criminal cases pertaining to moral turpitude or individual faction.
7. Per contra, learned Advocate General would argue that extension of security is not for mere asking of an individual but based on a rigorous exercise and report of the top officials constituting State Level Security Review Committee. He would emphasise, the State Level Security Review Committee thoroughly scrutinized the case of the petitioner in the light of the guidelines provided in G.O.Rt. No.655, dated 13.03.1997, and ultimately came to the opinion that he is not facing imminent threat either by any individual or by groups and, accordingly, recommended for withdrawal of existing security cover of personal security officers of the petitioner. He submitted the revised threat perception report in a sealed cover for perusal of this Court. He, thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above respective arguments. The subject of extension of security protection is no more res integra because a judicial scheme has been evolved and mandated in the form of guidelines by a Division Bench of this Court in G.Subas Reddy v. State of A.P. and others1. Guideline Nos.5 and 7 are germane for reconsideration and, hence, they are extracted thus:
"13. ..................
(5) Individual or individuals, who apprehend threat to peace and to his or their lives can approach the competent authority at the first instance at the district level and make application for deployment 1 (1996 (4) ALT 985 (DB) UDPR,J 9 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 of special 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. In case the application is rejected by the district authority, the applicant shall have the right to make application before the superior authority in the hierarchy as indicated above, the last being before the Government of the State.
The applicant/applicants for such security or deployment of Special Police Force shall, however, be responsible for the cost as envisaged under the Acts aforementioned and the Government shall have no authority at all to make any expense upon such special force from and out of the revenue of the State.
(7) Applicant, in case his applications have been refused, can approach this Court seeking judicial review of the order of the Court with all constraints self imposed and within the bounds of rules of judicial review may examine individual cases strictly in accordance with law. Any application, however, except for judicial review in the aforesaid circumstances directly made to this Court, shall not be entertainable as no cause for a Mandamus by the Court shall be deemed to have been arisen if the applicant made no efforts to approach the competent authority for such security."
9. A conjunctive reading of the above guidelines would show that an individual or individuals, who apprehend threat to his or their lives can approach the competent authority at the first instance at the district level for deployment of special force for maintenance of peace and protection of their lives or liberty and the competent authority is duty bound to pass suitable orders without any delay. The deployment of special force shall, in such cases, be at the expense of the applicant or applicants. When such applications are refused, those orders are susceptible to judicial review. In the instant case the facts are slightly different. The petitioner who was hitherto having the privilege of 1+1 UDPR,J 10 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 security protection was deprived of the same by din't of the impugned notice following the recommendation of security review committee. Thus, it is not the case of petitioner approaching the competent authority at the first instance and upon the said authority refusing to provide security, knocked the doors of this Court for judicial review. It is a case of petitioner challenging the impugned notice, dated 18.06.2019. Therefore, this Court has to see whether the impugned notice is backed up by valid grounds. Before that, it is profitable to extract briefly the admitted facts, which are not disputed in the counter and also in the security review committee's report.
10. The petitioner is admittedly a resident of Pulivendula and an active participant in TDP activities and he is a TDP leader. Since 2006/2007, till recently, he was provided with 1+1 security cover. He is the Director of training programmes conducted by TDP in Rayalaseema region. He is one of the accused in Crime No.117 of 2018 of Pulivendula police station, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 188, 353, 332, 307 and 120-B R/w.149 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Further, he is also one of the accused in Crime No.119 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 188, 353 and 120- B R/w.149 of I.P.C. Both the cases are under investigation, it is mentioned. It should be noted that in the revised threat perception report, the review committee recommended for withdrawal of the existing security of the petitioner on the main ground that he is not UDPR,J 11 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 facing imminent threat either by any individual or groups. It is pertinent to note that though in the said report it was mentioned that he is an accused in Crime Nos.117 and 119 of 12018, the State Level Security Review Committee has not shown his involvement in the aforesaid two crimes as one of the grounds for withdrawal of his security. Therefore, in the instant case, the petitioner's involvement in the two crimes need not be taken as a ground to test the validity of the review report.
11. Thus, the only ground which comes up for consideration is whether or not the petitioner is facing imminent threat either by any individual or groups for extending or withdrawing the security protection. As rightly argued by the learned Advocate General, this Court has no machinery to garner information as to whether petitioner has threat perception from any individual or groups to pit against the opinion of the review report. In Katasani Rami Reddy v. Government of A.P. and others2, a learned single Judge of this Court observed thus:
"9. While following the principles laid down by the Division Bench, I will add further that, the questions whether security is to be provided to the individual or not by the State is dependent upon the threat perception with regard to that individual, and what is the amount of threat and whether the threat is real or imaginary, and in case there is threat, what is the degree of the threat to an individual's life, cannot be considered either by this Court or by any other agency other than the Police force itself. Police is the competent authority and it is equipped with facilities like intelligence services to come to a conclusion about threat 2 (1998 (3) ALT 392) UDPR,J 12 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 perception of an individual. Therefore, whenever an application is made before a District Superintendent of Police by an individual for providing personal security to him, while disposing of such an application, the District Superintendent of Police should invariably record his finding with regard to the threat perception. Once such a finding is recorded, it will be open for such an individual to agitate the matter further, if the concerned Superintendent of Police does not come to correct finding with regard to threat perception. This will also enable the District Superintendent of Police to decide as to how much personal security is needed by an individual. Otherwise, unless he knows the level of the threat, he cannot be able to decide the matter. It is also well known that, sometimes threat to one's life can remain lifelong depending upon the circumstances and the incidents which are relatable with respect to such an individual, but sometimes threat to one's life may be temporary and in such a case continuous security may not be needed. Therefore, whenever personal security is provided to a person, it must be constantly reviewed by the concerned Superintendent of Police and when, on the basis of information available with him, he genuinely feels that the threat has vanished, he may recall the security."
12. Agreeing with the above view, it can still be said that while exercising the power of judicial review, duty is cast upon this Court to analyse and find out whether or not the review committee made an objective assessment of the facts and circumstances before recommending for either extension of security protection or withdrawal of the same. The question then is, how this Court will know whether the review report is a product based on careful and meticulous scrutiny of all the possible areas and angles from which there is a likelihood of danger to the life and limb of a particular person and then either confirmed or dismissed such threat perception.
UDPR,J 13 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 Primordially, the Court gets the said information only from the report of the State Level Security Review Committee. In every writ petition of this nature, obviously the State produces a copy of review committee's report in a sealed cover claiming it to be a privileged document not to be disclosed to the writ petitioner, even though the material contained in it relates to him in the sense it contains the investigative particulars relating to his threat perception. True, under Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act, an information as to the commission of an offence is a privileged information and police officer shall not be compelled to disclose whence he got the said information. It is profitable at this juncture to extract Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
"125. Information as to commission of offences:--No Magistrate or Police officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no Revenue officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue."
13. In People's Union for Civil Liberties and others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others3, the Apex Court has categorized certain class of information which the Government can seek exemptions/exceptions to withhold. It was held thus:
"57. Every right - legal or moral - carries with it a corresponding obligation. It is subject to several exemptions/exceptions indicated in broad terms. Generally, the exemptions/exceptions under those laws entitle the government to withhold information relating to the following matters:3
AIR 2004 (SC) 1442 UDPR,J 14 W.P. No.7822 of 2019
(i) International relations;
(ii) National Security (including defence) and public safety;
(iii) Investigation, detection and prevention of crime;
(iv) Internal deliberations of the government;
(v) Information received in confidence from a source outside the government;
(vi) Information, which, if disclosed, would violate the privacy of individual;
(vii) Information of an economic nature, (including Trade Secrets) which, if disclosed, would confer an unfair advance on some person or concern, or, subject some person or government to an unfair disadvantage;
(viii) Information which is subject to a claim of legal professional privilege, e.g., communication between a legal adviser and the client; between a physician and the patient;
(ix) Information about scientific discoveries."
14. Since the present review report falls in category (iii) of the above decision i.e., the information provided in the report is relating to the investigation said to be conducted by the police on the possible threat perception of the petitioner, it can be said to be a privileged document and the petitioner cannot have a peep into it. However, we are not on the privilege claimed by the respondents herein because the petitioner too did not request the Court to serve a copy of the report to him. This Court's concern is whether the information provided by the respondents in the said report is sufficient to conclude that the respondent authorities made a sagacious investigation of Sherlock Holmes calibre and made an objective assessment of the facts and circumstances to come to a conclusion which they arrived. With this UDPR,J 15 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 in mind, when report is perused, except mentioning that the petitioner is not facing imminent threat either by any individual or groups and hence the security can be withdrawn, no other information supporting the conclusion of the committee is available. In a given case, the review committee's report need not contain the names and details of the persons who have animosity against the petitioner and intend to do harm to him. It is also not necessary for the committee to disclose the particulars of the informants, who provided the aforesaid information because such particulars are hit by Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the report shall contain the information at least insinuatingly, as to what are the possible angles and corners from which there occurs a potential threat perception and whether such vulnerable sections have been meticulously scanned and a conclusion is drawn. For instance, a person may move and interact with different circles in his day to day life such as family circle, friends circle, office circle, business circle, political circle, clubs and associations etc., depending upon his status and way of life and he may apprehend threat perception from one or some or all of the aforesaid circles. If the review report contains information that it covered the above said different circles and avouches that there is no threat perception the Court can conclude that the review committee made an objective assessment of all the facts and circumstances. However, in the instant case, except mentioning that the petitioner is not facing imminent threat either by any individual or groups, there is no specific mentioning about the coverage of different circles with whom the UDPR,J 16 W.P. No.7822 of 2019 petitioner interacts and absence of threat perception from all of them. In the perception of this Court, the review committee's report submitted to the Court is vague and incapacitates the Court to analyse and conclude that the opinion of the review committee is based on the objective assessment of the facts and circumstances relating to the threat perception of the petitioner.
15. Therefore, having regard to the un-contraverted facts that the petitioner was hitherto having the privilege of 1+1 security protection, and as admittedly, the elections, both for the Parliament and State have concluded recently and that it would take some time to settle down the bitter animosities existed between the rival political parties in the wake of election and that the petitioner is an active participant belonging to one of the political parties, the respondent authorities are directed to extend the previous 1+1 security protection to the petitioner for a period of three (3) months from the date of this order at his expense. At the end of the said period, the security review committee shall take stock of all facts and circumstances prevailing at that time and make an objective assessment and furnish its recommendations to the concerned authorities for further extension or withdrawal of the security protection to the petitioner by giving the necessary details as mentioned supra scaffolding its recommendations.
16. The writ petition is accordingly ordered. No order as to costs.
UDPR,J 17 W.P. No.7822 of 2019
17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date:15.07.2019.
Dsh