M.N Rao, J.:— The petitioner Sri P. Indra Reddy - a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a former Home Minister of the State is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to provide security to him as he was apprehending threat to his life from the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Andhra Pradesh. He wants the personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force to protect him.
2. In the fore-noon when the matter came up for admission, we have aiked Sri Ashok Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner to strike off from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, all reference to Hon'ble Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu, the Chief Minister of the State, shown as the second respondent, since the allegations against him are very vague and lacking in particulars.
3. The learned Counsel immediately has complied with our direction with the result, there are only two respondents in this writ petition - the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Union of India - after the name of Hon'ble Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu was struck off.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred by the petitioner, inter alia, that he is leading an agitation for separate Telangana State and the ranks of persons supporting the separatist movement are increasing at a very fast pace and recently ten thousand Telugu Desam Party members joined the separate Telangana movemert. Because of the rising popularity of the movement, he apprehends threat from the State as the Government is interested in suppressing the movement for separate Telangana State.
5. After hearing Sri Ashok Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, for some time, we have asked the learned Government pleader for Home, Sri C. Sadasiva Reddy, to obtain instructions from the concerned officials as to what type of security is given to the petitioner and the extent of the apprehended danger and directed the matter to be listed before us in the afternoon at 2.15 p.m
6. When the matter is taken up in the afternoon the learned Government pleader has stated that five Personal Security Officers of the choice of Sri P. Indra Reddy, the petitioner, were provided to him and they are provided with 9 mm pistols and 9 mm carbines. At any given point of time, two Personal Security Officers will be guarding the petitioner.
7. The petitioner is an active politician; he is a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and earlier he was a Cabinet Minister incharge of the Home portfolio. His political activities naturally attract both admirers as well as adversaries. He has friends and foes in active politics. We, therefore, feel that the present security arrangements made by the State Government should continue and there should be no scaling down of the present security arrangements. However, should an occasion arise leading to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner about any likelihood of danger to his life, it is needless to say, he must be given sufficient protection.
8. It is represented before us that Sri Indra Reddy often goes on tours and during such tours, there is a risk of his being attacked by his enemies and political adversaries. We cannot predicate what type of threats he would be facing nor can we indulge in any exercise to understand any such threat perceptions. It is for the police to take care of such situations.
9. The petitioner will inform the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district atleast three days in advance of his intention of touring the district and as and when such intimation is received from the petitioner, the concerned Superintendent of Police shall take appropriate action for providing necessary protection to the petitioner during his tours. The extent of the protection to be given in this regard, it is needless to say, depends upon the degree of the threat perception. The first respondent shall take effective steps to comply with the aforesaid directions by issuing necessary instructions to the concerned Superintendents of Police of all the districts in the State.
10. The writ petition is closed with the aforesaid directions.
Comments