Patna High Court Restores 'Y+' Security To MP Pappu Yadav, Says Order Downgrading Protection Was 'Arbitrary & Whimsical'
The Patna High Court has set aside the Bihar Government's decision downgrading the security cover of sitting MP Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav from 'Y+' to 'Y' category, holding that the decision was arbitrary, unsupported by relevant material, and taken without following principles of natural justice.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by the...
The Patna High Court has set aside the Bihar Government's decision downgrading the security cover of sitting MP Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav from 'Y+' to 'Y' category, holding that the decision was arbitrary, unsupported by relevant material, and taken without following principles of natural justice.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by the sitting Member of Parliament from Purnia Lok Sabha Constituency, who sought enhancement of his security cover in view of alleged threats to his life and property from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang and Chhotu Yadav gang.
The petitioner stated that he had made several representations to the Government of Bihar as well as the Union of India, and had also lodged an FIR against the Chhotu Yadav gang.
The Court noted that at the time of filing the petition, the petitioner had 'Y' category security. Subsequently, by order dated 09.08.2025, the Government of Bihar upgraded his security cover to 'Y+'. However, by decision dated 23.09.2025, the State Government scaled it down again from 'Y+' to 'Y'. The petitioner submitted that neither the order upgrading his security nor the order scaling it down was communicated to him. It was further argued that no input was invited from him before downgrading the security cover, thereby offending principles of natural justice.
The petitioner also submitted that grant of security is not a matter of privilege, but is intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, any decision granting, modifying, or withdrawing such protection must be based on objective material and procedural fairness.
The Union of India submitted that the petitioner's threat perception had been assessed by security agencies, which found no specific threat. However, the Union had sent a letter dated 06.11.2025 to the State Government to address the petitioner's security concerns based on local threats.
The State opposed the petition and submitted that the assessment of threat perception and grant, continuation, enhancement, or withdrawal of security falls within the domain of the Government.
Upon perusing the records, the Court found that the only basis for scaling down the petitioner's security was the report of the Superintendent of Police, Purnia. The report had been sought in light of an application by one Santosh Kumar, Member of Parliament, who had alleged that the petitioner was misusing his security cover for land grabbing and extortion.
However, the Court noted that the Superintendent of Police himself reported that no such complaint had been lodged against the petitioner by any person, businessman, official, or doctor. The Court further noted that although the petitioner had been repeatedly representing about threats from criminal gangs, the report only stated that he had not lodged criminal cases regarding such threats. Holding the downgrading decision unsustainable, the Court observed:
“As such, I find that the decision of the Bihar Government dated 23.09.2025, scaling down the security cover of the petitioner from 'Y+' to 'Y' category is arbitrary and whimsical. There is no relevant material on record which may sustain it. There is no input of any security agency, including the Superintendent of Police, Purnia, showing that there is no credible threats to the petitioner or the threat perception qua the petitioner has come down requiring scaling down of his security cover. Even the Principles of Natural Justice have not been complied with while taking decision. No input was sought from the protectee/petitioner, so that the competent authority could examine or verify them. The decision regarding scaling down of the security was not even communicated to the petitioner/protectee.”
The Court further observed:
“Ours is a constitutional democracy. There is supremacy of the Constitution and the law made thereunder. Principles of Natural Justice and due process of law are integral part of our legal system as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [(1978) 1 SCC 248]. No prejudicial order could be passed against any individual without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. Executive decision must be based on objective material and adherence to fairness in decision making.”
The Court also held that an order affecting the rights and liberty of a person must contain reasons and reflect due application of mind. It observed:
“Recording of reasons is not an empty formality, it is a safeguard against arbitrariness and ensures transparency, fairness, and accountability in decision making. The absence of reasons renders it bald and makes it impossible to ascertain whether relevant factors were duly considered or not.”
The Court rejected the State's argument that the petition had become infructuous since the orders dated 09.08.2025 and 23.09.2025 were not communicated to the petitioner and he came to know of them only in Court.
The Court also rejected the submission that the petitioner was required to amend the writ petition to specifically challenge the order dated 23.09.2025. It held that the writ court is not barred from granting consequential or incidental reliefs that logically follow from the findings recorded in the judgment. The Court held:
“Moreover, the Writ Court is not confined to the exact relief set out in the prayer clause, so long as the relief granted is justified by the facts pleaded and is necessary to remedy the injustice identified.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order dated 23.09.2025 scaling down the petitioner's security cover from 'Y+' to 'Y' category and restored status quo ante. The Home Secretary, Government of Bihar was directed to restore the petitioner's 'Y+' category security cover.
The Court further directed the Bihar Government to pass a fresh order regarding enhancement of security cover after inviting threat inputs from the petitioner as well as security agencies and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Case Title: Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2343 of 2024.
Appearance: Mr. Shivnandan Bharti, Mr. Kanishka Arora, Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, Ms. Neha Kumari Singh, Ms. Priyanka, Ms. Sakshi Goyal and Mr. Ujjwal Ranjan for the Petitioner. Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Sr. Panel Counsel, for the Union of India. Mr. Kinkar Kumar, S.C.-9, Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, A.C. to S.C.-9, and Ms. Sushmita Sharma, A.C. to S.C.-9, for the State.