Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav vs The Union of India through The Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2343 of 2024
======================================================
Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, Son of Chandra Narayan Yadav, R/o Village-
Arjun Bhawan, Arjun Nagar, VarddhmanHata, PS- Purnia, Distt.- Purnea
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through The Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India, New Delhi
2. The Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, Delhi
3. The State of Bihar thorugh the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
5. The Home Secretarty, Deptt. of Home, Govt. of Bihar Patna
6. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
7. The Inspector General (Security), Bihar, Patna
8. The Superintendent of Police, Purnea Bihar
9. The Station House Officer, P.S.- Purnea, Purnea Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivnandan Bharti, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Arora, Advocate
Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, Advocate
Ms. Neha Kumari Singh, Advocate
Ms. Priyanka, Advocate
Ms. Sakshi Goyal, Advocate
Mr. Ujjwal Ranjan, Advocate
For the Union of India : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Sr. Panel Counsel
For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, S.C.-9
Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, A.C. to S.C-9
Ms. Sushmita Sharma, A.C. to S.C.-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-05-2026
The writ petitioner is a sitting member of Parliament from
Purnia Loksabha Constituency and, presently, he is provided
with ‘Y’ category security cover, however, by the writ petition,
he is seeking enhancement of the same in view of the threats to

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
2/14
his life and property on account of persistent threats from
Lawrence Bishnoi gang and Chhotu Yadav gang. In this regard,
he has made several representations to the Government of Bihar
as well as Union of India. He has also lodged an FIR against
Chhotu Yadav gang.
2. A counter affidavit has been also filed on behalf of
Respondent No. 8, Superintendent of Police, Purnia.
3. I heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar and learned Senior
Panel Counsel for the Union of India.
4. It transpires from the statements at bar from both sides
that the petitioner was having ‘Y’ category security at the time
of filing the present petition. However, subsequently, vide order
dated 09.08.2025, the Government of Bihar decided to provide
‘Y+’ security cover to the petitioner. But subsequently, vide
decision dated 23.09.2025, the Government of Bihar, scaled
down the security cover of the petitioner from ‘Y+’ to ‘Y’
category. As such, undisputedly the petitioner is having ‘Y’
category security at present.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
communication was made to the petitioner regarding upgrading
of his security cover from ‘Y’ to ‘Y+’ vide order dated

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
3/14
09.08.2025 or scaling down of his security from ‘Y+’ to ‘Y’
category vide order dated 23.09.2025.
6. He also submits that no input whatsoever was invited
from the petitioner while scaling down his security cover vide
order dated 23.09.2025, offending well established Principles of
Natural Justice. The assessment of threat perception cannot be
arbitrary, opaque or bereft of procedural fairness.
7. He also submits that conferment of security is not a
matter of privilege but is intrinsically linked to the fundamental
right to life and liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Hence, any decision either granting,
modifying or withdrawal of such protection must be informed
by objective material and adherence to fairness in decision
making. Hence, the order dated 23.09.2025 is not sustainable
and is, accordingly, liable to the set aside.
8. He further submits that in view of serious and
persistent threats to the life and property of the petitioner, he
requires at least ‘Z’ category security. However, the
respondents-authorities are arbitrarily denying adequate
protection to the petitioner. Hence, the respondents-authorities
may be directed to assess the security threat objectively and
discreetly and while making such assessment, the threats as

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
4/14
perceived by the petitioner should be also examined and
considered by the concerned authorities.
9. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the Union of India and
learned Standing Counsel for Government of Bihar vehemently
oppose the prayer of the petitioner for enhancement of his
security cover.
10. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the Union of India
submits that in view of the representation of the petitioner to
Union of India, the threat perception was assessed by the
Security Agency. But the Security Agency found no specific
threats to the petitioner. However, the Union of India has sent a
letter dated 06.11.2025 to the State Government to address the
security concern of the petitioner based on local threats.
11. However, learned Standing counsel for the State of
Bihar submits that vide order dated 09.08.2025, the security
cover of the petitioner was upgraded from ‘Y’ to ‘Y+’ category.
However, in view of review of threat perception, the security
cover has been again scaled down to ‘Y’ category vide order
dated 23.09.2025. However, the order dated 23.09.2025 has not
been challenged by the petitioner and hence, the present writ
petition has become infructuous and not maintainable in view of
the order dated 09.08.2025 and 23.09.2025, passed by the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
5/14
Government of Bihar.
12. He further submits that the petitioner is required to
amend his prayer seeking quashing of the order dated
23.09.2025, passed by Government of Bihar, scaling down his
security cover from ‘Y+’ to ‘Y’ category.
13. He also submits that the petitioner has not lodged any
FIR against Lawrence Bishnoi gang.
14. He further submits that the assessment of threat
perception and grant, continuation, enhancement and
withdrawal of security is a domain of the Government and the
petitioner cannot claim upgradation of security cover as a matter
of right.
15. He also refers to and relies upon para Nos. 6 and 7 of
Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. R.M. Srivastava, (2015) 13 SCC 370
and para No. 9 of State of W.B. Vs. Biswanath Mitra, (2015)
14 SCC 599.
16. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions of the parties and perused the material on record,
including the official record of Government of Bihar regarding
security cover provided to the petitioner which was called for
perusal of this Court.
17. From perusal of the record and the statements at bar,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
6/14
there is no dispute that at the time of filing of this writ petition,
the Petitioner was getting ‘Y’ category security and
subsequently, vide order dated 09.08.2025, the Government of
Bihar upgraded the security cover from ‘Y’ to ‘Y+’ category.
However, subsequently, after about one and half month, vide
order dated 23.09.2025, the Government of Bihar has scaled
down his security cover in view of the recommendation of the
State Security Committee.
18. A copy of the order dated 23.09.2025 is filed across
the board and the same is taken on record. As per this letter, the
security cover of the Petitioner has been scaled down from ‘Y+’
to ‘Y’ category in the light of the recommendation of the State
Security Committee dated 19.09.2025.
19. A copy of the meeting of the State Security
Committee dated 19.09.2025 is also filed across the board by
learned Standing Counsel for the Government of Bihar, as per
which, the Security Committee has recommended scaling down
of the security cover of the Petitioner from ‘Y’+ to ‘Y’ category
in view of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Purnia,
vide Memo No. 7640/conf. dated 18.09.2025.
20 . The said letter of the Superintendent of Police, Purnia
is also in the official record brought by learned Standing

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
7/14
Counsel for the State of Bihar. It transpires that this report of the
Superintendent of Police was sought in the light of an
application of one Santosh Kumar, Member of Parliament, who
had alleged that the Petitioner was misusing his security cover
for grabbing land as well as extortion of money from
businessmen. But the concerned Superintendent of Police, in his
letter dated 19.09.2025, has reported to the Superintendent of
Police (Security) that no such complaint has been lodged against
the Petitioner by any person, businessman, officials or doctor
and in case any such complaint is lodged against the Petitioner,
action would be taken against him as per law.
21 . In the said letter, the Superintendent of Police has also
reported that for the assessment of threat perception in view of
the application of the Petitioner for enhancement of the security
cover, one joint Inquiry Committee comprising A.S.P, Special
Branch, Katihar and Superintendent of Police was constituted.
This committee reported that though the Petitioner had kept
representing about threats to his person and property from
criminal gangs, he had not lodged any case against them.
22. It was also reported by the Superintendent of Police
that eleven police personnel have been deployed in protection of
the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
8/14
23 . From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it clearly
transpires that only basis for scaling down of security cover of
the petitioner from ‘Y+’ to ‘Y’ category vide order dated
23.09.2025 is the report of the Superintendent of Police, Purnea
and even this report does not disclose that as per assessment, the
threat perception qua the Petitioner has come down requiring
scaling down of the security cover of the Petitioner/Protectee.
The report only says that the Petitioner has not lodged any
criminal cases, in view of the threats extended to him by
criminal gangs.
24 . Moreover, the State Security Committee, before
taking the decision to scale down the security cover has not
sought any input from any other security agency. Even input
regarding threat has not been invited from the Petitioner/
protectee. The decision of the Government regarding
downgrading the security cover of the Petitioner from ‘Y+’ to
‘Y’ category has not been even communicated to the
Petitioner/Protectee.
25 . 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

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
9/14
sustain it. There is no input of any security agency, including the
Superintendent of Police, Purnea, 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.
26. 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.
27. It is also a settled principle of law that any order
affecting rights of a person and particularly his liberty must be
with reasons and must reflect due application of mind.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
10/14
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.
28. As such, Executive decisions are required to be taken
as per law adhering to due process, and not as per whims and
fancies of the State officials.
29. I find no substance in the submission of learned
Standing Counsel for the Government of Bihar that in view of
the order dated 09.08.2025, the present writ petition has become
infructuous. The order dated 09.08.2025 was not communicated
to the petitioner, who comes to know about it in the Court room
from the mouth of learned Counsel for the State of Bihar.
Moreover, that order has been superseded by subsequent order
dated 23.09.2025, whereby Government of Bihar has again
scaled down the security cover of the petitioner to ‘Y’ from ‘Y+’
category and as such, the petitioner is having only ‘Y’ category
security at present. As such, the prayer of the petitioner for
enhancement of security cover still subsists.
30. I also find no merit in the submission of learned
counsel for the State of Bihar that the petitioner should have

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
11/14
challenged the order dated 23.09.2025, by way of amendment in
the writ petition and without such challenge, this order could not
be set aside/quashed.
31. Here again, I find that this order dated 23.09.2025 was
also not communicated to the petitioner by the Government of
Bihar. The petitioner comes to know about this order in the
Court room from the statement of learned Standing counsel of
State of Bihar at bar.
32. I further find that the order dated 23.09.2025, which is
not based on objective material and adherence to fairness, is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
33. Moreover, the Writ Court is not barred from granting
consequential or incidental reliefs that logically and inevitably
follow from the findings recorded in the judgment, otherwise, it
would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. Denying
such relief on technical grounds would compel the petitioner to
initiate fresh litigation on the same factual foundation, thereby
defeating the purpose of constitutional remedies and burdening
the judicial system.
34. 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

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
12/14
injustice identified.
35. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath v. ITO
( 1965 SCC OnLine SC 61), has clearly held that Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is couched in comprehensive
phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High
Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution
designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the
power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against
whom it can be exercised.
36. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in Dwarka
Nath Case (supra) that Article 226 enables the High Courts to
mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated
requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of
the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative
writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions
grown over the years in a comparatively small country like
England with a unitary form of government to a vast country
like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a
construction defeats the purpose of the article itself. To say this
is not to say that the High Courts can function arbitrarily under
this Article. Some limitations are implicit in the article and

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
13/14
others may be evolved to direct the article through defined
channels.
37. Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 has also held that the High
Court is within its jurisdiction to mould relief in appropriate
cases.
38. It is also pertinent to point out that Article 226 vests
High Courts with wide and flexible powers, those powers are
structured by well-settled judicial limitations. A High Court may
grant relief even if it is not specifically prayed for, provided
such relief is rooted in the pleadings, flows naturally from the
facts established, causes no prejudice to the respondent, and is
necessary to remedy illegality or injustice. What is
impermissible is the grant of relief that is wholly outside the
case set up by the petitioner or which introduces a new cause of
action under the guise of equitable jurisdiction.
39. Hence, the order dated 23.09.2025 scaling down the
security cover of the Petitioner from ‘Y+’ to ‘Y’ category is set
aside and status quo ante stands restored. The Home Secretary,
Government of Bihar is directed to restore the security cover of
the Petitioner to ‘Y+' category as he was getting before its
scaling down to ‘Y’ category.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2343 of 2024 dt.14-05-2026
14/14
40. Now the Bihar Government is directed to pass afresh
order regarding enhancement of security cover of the petitioner,
in accordance with law, by inviting threat inputs from the
petitioner as well as security agencies and pass a reasoned order.

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/Shoaib
AFR/NAFR A.F.R
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.05.2026
Transmission Date 18.05.2026