Reddy filed a writ petition seeking to declare the withdrawal of his 2+2 security by police authorities, without prior notice or objective assessment, as arbitrary and unlawful.
Andhra Pradesh: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declined to provide security for former Additional Advocate General (AAG) P. Sudhakara Reddy, who claimed threats from political figures.
Reddy filed a writ petition seeking to declare the withdrawal of his 2+2 security by police authorities, without prior notice or objective assessment, as arbitrary and unlawful.
Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, presiding over a single bench, stated,
“The petitioner cannot establish a case based on media reports or YouTube channel news. Such reports are merely hearsay and cannot be substantiated. These media reports are inadmissible as evidence. There is no concrete material to support the petitioner’s allegations. Consequently, no supporting material has been presented before the Court to substantiate the petitioner’s claims.”
Reddy, represented by Senior Advocate D. Prakash Reddy and Advocate M. Bala Krishna, argued that he had handled sensitive cases involving political leaders, which attracted animosity from opposition leaders and parts of the media. As a result, he was granted security during his tenure as AAG.
He cited incidents, including entries made by the Chief Minister’s son in a so-called “Red Book,” which allegedly referenced Reddy as a target for retribution.
Justice Chakravarthi underscored that individual security assessments are prioritized by the state and frequently reviewed to reflect current threat levels. Citing the case of Katasani Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Court noted that security may be temporary, with continuous assessment by the relevant authorities. The Court further highlighted that the Security Review Committee had evaluated Reddy’s case on July 16, 2024, and found no imminent threat, thereby deeming additional security unnecessary.
The Court stressed that Reddy should have approached relevant authorities rather than preemptively seeking judicial intervention. The Court observed that if every petitioner bypassed administrative processes, it would set a troubling precedent.
Since the Security Review Committee’s decision was validly communicated and supported by its assessment, the petition was dismissed. The Court concluded that the prior provision of security does not entitle the petitioner to indefinite protection, especially in light of the Committee’s assessment that no present threat exists.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
