Jayaprakash v Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 31207 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JAYAPRAKASH V. NAYAK S/O. VENKANNA NAYAK. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. THE ADMINISTRATOR, AYUR ASHRAMA, NO.1517/A, VISHAL BHAVAN, 17TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, A BLOCK MILK COLONY, RAJAJINAGAR IIND STAGE. BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE / CONTINUE TO PROVIDE X SCALE WITH ESCORT OR IN AN ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDE WITH ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO THE PLAITNIFF SRI. SRI SRI VIDYAVACHASPATHI VISHWA SANTOSH BHARATHI SRIPADARU. THE PONTIFF OF AYUR ASHRAMA, BENGALURU PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 02/06/2022 AND THE REFERENCE CAN BE SEEN TO THE SAID ORDER VIDE ANNX-H AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following

¶30

reliefs:

¶31

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction to the respondents to provide/continue to provide 'X' scale with escort or in an alternative to provide with adequate police protection to the pontiff Sri Sri Sri Vidhyavachaspathi Vishwa Santosh Bharathi Sripadaru, the pontiff of Ayur Ashrama, Bengaluru pursuant to the order dated 02.06.2022 and the reference can be seen to the said order vide Annexure-H.

¶32

ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶33

The petitioner, who claims to be the Administrator of “Ayur Ashram” and is admittedly in-charge of the day-

¶34

to-day affairs of the Ashrama, has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus on behalf of the pontiff, Sri Sri Sri Vidyavachaspathi Vishwa Santosh Bharathi Sripadaru, the religious head of the divine Peeta,

¶35

Sri Sri Sri Barakooru Maha Samsthanam, situated at Barkooru in Udupi District. The gist of the petitioner’s grievance is that the said pontiff has been under a

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

consistent and genuine threat perception to his life, which had, in fact, prompted a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly to address a communication dated 23.01.2012 to the then Hon’ble Chief Minister seeking adequate police protection to the pontiff. Acting on such inputs and assessment of threat perception, ‘Y’ category security was initially granted to the pontiff, which, upon periodic review, came to be scaled down to ‘X’ category security. It is not in dispute that such ‘X’ scale security continued till September 2025.

¶39

The core grievance urged before this Court is that the said ‘X’ category security has been abruptly and unilaterally withdrawn without any prior notice, reasons, or opportunity being extended to the pontiff, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

¶40

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that the pontiff

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

was extended ‘X’ category security with escort based on a complaint lodged as recently as on 27.02.2022, and that the continuation of such security arrangements is not automatic or perpetual. He would contend that grant, continuation, enhancement, or withdrawal of security cover—whether ‘Z’, ‘Y’, or ‘X’ category is fundamentally premised on a periodic assessment of threat perception carried out by the competent authorities. It is further submitted that unless the pontiff submits a fresh representation, supported by relevant materials indicating subsisting and credible threat to his life, the authorities would not be in a position to re-evaluate or extend the security cover. However, learned AGA fairly submits that in the event such a representation is submitted, the competent authority would consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

¶44

This Court, having given its anxious consideration to the material placed on record, finds that the pontiff was

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

indeed accorded ‘Y’ category security as early as in the year 2012, which was subsequently scaled down to ‘X’ category security upon review. The continuation of such security till September 2025 is also not in dispute. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that the withdrawal of the said security has been effected unilaterally, without assigning reasons and without affording any opportunity to the pontiff, thereby offending the well-established principles of natural justice. It is trite that while the State is vested with the authority to assess threat perception and accordingly classify security cover— be it ‘Z’, ‘Y’, or ‘X’ category,such exercise cannot be arbitrary, opaque, or bereft of procedural fairness. The conferment of security is not a matter of privilege, but is intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, any decision either granting, modifying, or withdrawing such protection must

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

be informed by objective material, periodic review, and adherence to fairness in decision-making.

¶51

The concept of categorized security—such as ‘Z’, ‘Y’, and ‘X’ is rooted in an institutional mechanism whereby threat perception is assessed by specialized agencies, taking into account inputs relating to past incidents, present risks, and the overall vulnerability of the individual concerned. While it is within the domain of the executive to determine the level of security required, such determination must necessarily follow a rational procedure, including periodic review and, where circumstances warrant withdrawal or downgrading, an opportunity to the affected individual to place relevant material indicating subsisting threat. In the case on hand, the records do not indicate that any such exercise has been undertaken prior to the withdrawal of ‘X’ category security. The unilateral withdrawal, in the absence of a discernible review or notice, cannot be sustained.

¶52

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

This Court is therefore of the considered view that whenever a citizen, more particularly a religious head with a demonstrated history of threat perception, has been extended categorized security, the competent authority is under an obligation to periodically reassess such threat perception through a discreet and objective enquiry. If the authority proposes to withdraw or downgrade the security, it must be preceded by a review based on cogent material and, where feasible, by affording an opportunity to the individual concerned to submit relevant inputs. The failure to adopt such a procedure renders the decision vulnerable to challenge.

¶55

In the present case, since the withdrawal of ‘X’ category security appears to have been effected without such review and without adherence to procedural safeguards, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for issuance of appropriate directions. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the submission made by the learned AGA that a fresh

¶56

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

representation supported by material particulars would

¶59

enable the authority to undertake a comprehensive reassessment of threat perception.

¶60

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. The writ petition is allowed in part .

¶63

ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation on behalf of the pontiff seeking appropriate categorized security, including ‘X’ or higher category, by furnishing all relevant documents, inputs, and material indicating subsisting threat perception.

¶64

iii. Upon receipt of such representation, the fourth respondent shall conduct an independent and objective assessment of the threat perception, in accordance with the governing guidelines and principles relating to categorized security, and shall pass a reasoned order as to whether continuation or enhancement of security is warranted.

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:17755 WP No. 31207 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

10 -

¶68

iv. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶69

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶70

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Jayaprakash v. Nayak v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakash v. Nayak v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Awab Adil Ahmed Mohamed @ Awab Vs Union of India

Chikmagalore District High School Vs Under Secretary to the Government- 3

Mr. Abdul Khader Vs the State of Karnataka

Paras Aneja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.B.N Monappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Thippaiah H @ Thipeswamy