The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh Minister Jalagam Prasad Rao, refusing to interfere with the State Government's decision to withdraw his personal security cover. The Court held that the continuation of security protection depends on an objective assessment of threat perception and is not a legally enforceable right.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Jalagam Prasad Rao, son of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jalagam Vengal Rao, challenging a notice dated July 9, 2026, by which the authorities withdrew his 1+1 Personal Security Officers (PSOs) arrangement.
Rao argued that his family had remained under threat because of his father's role in tackling extremist activities during his tenure in public office. He also referred to an earlier instance in 2024 when the High Court had directed the restoration of his security cover after it had been withdrawn. According to the petitioner, he had also received threatening WhatsApp calls demanding money, reinforcing his apprehension regarding his safety.
The petitioner contended that despite submitting a detailed representation and appearing for a personal hearing, the authorities failed to properly consider his concerns before withdrawing the security arrangement.
State's Stand
The State Government opposed the petition, stating that the Security Review Committee had objectively assessed the petitioner's threat perception before recommending withdrawal of security.
According to the Government, there was no present or specific threat to Rao. Authorities informed the Court that intelligence reports found no active threat from Maoist groups or other extremist organisations. They also stated that the WhatsApp number cited by the petitioner belonged to an individual with no links to extremist organisations.
The Government further submitted that personal security arrangements are administrative measures reviewed periodically and cannot continue indefinitely without a genuine security assessment supporting them.
Court's Observations
Justice T. Madhavi Devi examined the threat perception report submitted before the Court along with the petitioner's representation and the material considered by the Security Review Committee.
The Court noted that the authorities had provided the petitioner an opportunity to submit his explanation and had also granted him a personal hearing before taking the final decision.
Observing that security arrangements are based on prevailing threat perception, the Court said:
"No person has any vested or enforceable legal right to claim continuation of personal security arrangement irrespective of the prevailing threat perception."
The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had served as a Minister between 1990 and 1994, had remained politically inactive for several years, presently resided in Hyderabad, and only occasionally visited his native village. These factors, along with the threat assessment, supported the administrative decision to withdraw the security cover.
Court's Decision
Finding that the Government had followed due process, considered the petitioner's representation, and relied on an objective threat assessment, the High Court declined to interfere with the administrative decision.
Accordingly, Justice T. Madhavi Devi dismissed the writ petition and upheld the withdrawal of the petitioner's personal security cover.
No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details
Case Title: Jalagam Prasad Rao v. State of Telangana represented by Principal Secretary (Home) and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 22636 of 2026
Judge: Justice T. Madhavi Devi
Decision Date: 16 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
