The Patna High Court recently set aside the Bihar government’s decision to downgrade the security cover of Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Rajesh Ranjan, popularly known as Pappu Yadav [Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav v Union of India & Ors.].

In the order dated May 14, Justice Jitendra Kumar held that the Bihar government's move was arbitrary and taken without following due process.

Yadav, a prominent political figure in Bihar is the MP representing the Purnia constituency. He had founded the Jan Adhikar Party (Loktantrik) in 2015 before merging it with the Indian National Congress in March 2024.

Yadav, had approached the Court seeking enhanced protection, citing persistent threats from criminal gangs such as Lawrence Bishnoi gang and Chhotu Yadav gang. At the time of filing the petition, he was provided ‘Y’ category security. Court records showed that his cover was upgraded to ‘Y+’ in August 2025 but scaled down again to ‘Y’ in September 2025.

Coming down sharply on the manner in which the decision to scale down his protection was taken, the Court said,

“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.”

‘Y’ category security typically involves a limited deployment of armed personnel, usually around 8 to 11 security staff, including personal security officers. While ‘Y+’ is a higher tier security, with an expanded team and stricter round-the-clock protection arrangements.

The classification is based on threat perception assessments conducted by security agencies.

The Court found that the decision to reduce Yadav’s security was not supported by any concrete material to show that the threats had reduced. It noted that the downgrade was primarily based on a report by the Superintendent of Police, Purnia, which only stated that no formal complaints had been filed but did not say that the threat itself had lessened or no longer existed.

The Court held that the absence of reasons in the State’s decision rendered it unsustainable.

“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,” said the Court.

The Court also flagged serious procedural lapses, observing that no input had been sought from Yadav before scaling down his security, nor was the decision communicated to him.

It further noted that no inputs were taken from other security agencies before arriving at the decision.

Highlighting the importance of constitutional safeguards, the Court observed,

“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... 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.”

The Court further rejected the State’s contention that the petition had become infructuous or was technically defective for not specifically challenging the security downgrade order. It held that such objections could not defeat substantive justice, particularly when the order had not even been communicated to the petitioner.

The Court, ultimately, aside the September 2025 order and restored Yadav’s ‘Y+’ security cover.

It also directed the Bihar government to reassess his threat perception afresh by considering inputs from both security agencies and the petitioner, and to pass a reasoned order.

Advocates Shivnandan Bharti, Kanishka Arora, Pintu Kumar Patel, Neha Kumari Singh, Priyanka, Sakshi Goyal and Ujjwal Ranjan appeared for Pappu Yadav.

Senior Panel Counsel Bindhyachal Rai appeared for the Union of India.

Standing Counsel Kinkar Kumar along with Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsels Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi and Sushmita Sharma appeared for the State.

[Read Order]