The Telangana High Court has upheld the withdrawal of personal security officers granted to former united Andhra Pradesh Minister Jalagam Prasad Rao, after noting that the security review committee had reported that there was no threat perception to the petitioner.

The court also held that no person has a vested or enforceable legal right to the continuation of personal security arrangements and that the decision to provide or withdraw security is an administrative one based on periodic threat assessment and found no reason to interfere after authorities concluded that the petitioner faced no present threat. It also found that the petitioner has not been in active politics for now.

Justice T. Madhavi Devi observed:

"Having regard to the rival contentions and also the threat perception report submitted by the ACP, this Court finds that the Security Review Committee and thereafter, the Commissioner of Police, i.e., 6th respondent, have considered the threat perception reports of the officials as well as of the petiioner's own inputs and thereafter have come to the conclusion that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner and therefore the security cover has been withdrawn.

As submitted the learned Government Pleader for Home, no person has any vested or enforceable legal right to claim continuation of personal security arrangement irrespective of the prevailing threat perception. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Minister during the years 1990 to 1994 and thereafter, he has remained inactive in politics for the past 32 years and he is not active in politics as of now and the petitioner also appears to be residing in Hyderabad and visiting his native village occasionally. It is an administrative decision taken by the Government after considering all the aspects of the issue and after considering the petitioner's representation as well giving him a personal hearing. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order."

The petitioner, Jalagam Prasad Rao, son of former Chief Minister of undivided Andhra Pradesh Jalagam Vengal Rao and himself a former Minister in the erstwhile State, challenged an order withdrawing his 1+1 Personal Security Officers (PSOs). He contended that his family had remained under constant threat from extremist organisations because of measures taken by his late father against extremist activities and his own public life.

The petitioner submitted that when his security cover was withdrawn in 2024, he had approached the High Court, following which it was restored. He further stated that after the earlier withdrawal, he received threatening WhatsApp calls and messages demanding ₹1 crore and warning that payment was "in the interest of your safety". After security was again withdrawn in June 2026, he approached the High Court once more, whereupon the authorities were directed to grant him a personal hearing. Although he submitted a detailed representation explaining his threat perception and appeared before the authorities, he alleged that the impugned order withdrawing his security was passed without properly considering his case.

Relying on a decision of the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner argued that while security cannot be claimed merely because of private disputes, political personalities who face genuine threats from terrorists, militants or organised criminal groups owing to their public service are entitled to security at State expense. He also submitted that he regularly visited interior tribal areas and interacted with members of tribal communities, exposing him to threats from anti-social elements.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner was provided security only during visits to his native village and that the Security Review Committee, after obtaining updated threat perception reports, found no present or specific threat warranting continuation of the security cover. It contended that security arrangements are purely administrative measures based on periodic assessment and are always subject to review under the applicable government guidelines.

The Government further informed the Court that the Security Review Committee, at its meeting held on June 1, 2026, reviewed the cases of several protectees and recommended withdrawal of security wherever no continuing threat perception existed. It stated that the petitioner currently resided in Hyderabad, visited Khammam only occasionally, had not reported any recent threats to the local police, and that intelligence inputs indicated there was no specific threat from CPI (Maoist) or any other Left Wing Extremist outfit. It also submitted that the WhatsApp number from which the petitioner claimed to have received threats belonged to a tailor from Nellore and had no connection with Maoist organisations or extremist groups.

After examining the threat perception report submitted in a sealed cover, the High Court found that the Security Review Committee and the Commissioner of Police had considered both the intelligence inputs and the petitioner's own representations before concluding that there was no present threat to his life.

The plea was dismissed.

Case Title: Jalagam Prasad Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 22636 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order