Executive decision to scale down security cover must be based on objective material and principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a sitting Member of Parliament from Purnia, sought enhancement of his security cover to 'Z' category due to persistent threats from the Lawrence Bishnoi and Chhotu Yadav gangs

While the petition was pending, the Government of Bihar upgraded his security from 'Y' to 'Y+' category on 09.08.2025

However, shortly thereafter, on 23.09.2025, the State scaled it back down to 'Y' category based on a recommendation from the State Security Committee

This decision was allegedly reached without notifying the petitioner or seeking his input, and was influenced by a report from the SP Purnea concerning unrelated allegations of security misuse

1. Whether the State’s decision to scale down the petitioner’s security cover from 'Y+' to 'Y' category was arbitrary and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, has the power to grant relief against an order (the scaling-down order) that was not specifically challenged in the original prayer of the writ petition

The court applied the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, noting that security is a matter of right, not privilege

It relied on Article 226 regarding the High Court's wide powers to "reach injustice wherever it is found" as established in Dwarka Nath v. ITO

the power to "mould relief" from B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India

Procedurally, it applied the Principles of Natural Justice and Due Process as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, requiring executive decisions to be fair, reasoned, and non-arbitrary

The Court found the State's decision-making process deeply flawed. It observed that the SP Purnea’s report—the sole basis for the downgrade—did not actually indicate a reduction in threat level; rather, it merely noted a lack of formal FIRs and investigated unrelated complaints of security misuse

The Court highlighted that the State failed to communicate the downgrade to the petitioner, denied him an opportunity to provide threat inputs, and failed to record objective reasons for the reduction

Regarding the procedural objection that the petitioner did not formally amend his writ to challenge the 23.09.2025 order, the Court held that technicalities cannot obstruct justice under Article 226, especially when the facts regarding the order emerged only during the proceedings and the order itself lacked legal foundation

The Court further directed the State to conduct a fresh, objective assessment of the petitioner’s threat perception by inviting inputs from both the petitioner and security agencies, and to subsequently issue a reasoned order