Telangana HC directs DGP to consider retired IPS officer’s security plea

The Telangana High Court has directed the Director-General of Police to consider a representation from retired IPS officer Dr J Purnachandra Rao regarding the continuation of his security cover. A single judge bench, comprising Justice Tangirala Madhavi Devi, passed the order while disposing of a writ filed by the officer.

Dr Rao had approached the court seeking a direction to the government and the Police department not to withdraw his security, which includes a 2+2 personal security officer cover and a bullet- resistant vehicle.

The court ordered the DGP to evaluate the petitioner's representation dated June 18. If the authorities still believe that the security cover is no longer necessary, they must issue a show-cause notice to Dr Rao. This will give him an opportunity to explain his case before a final decision is made in accordance with the law.

The court further ordered that the 2+2 security cover and the bullet-resistant vehicle must remain in place until authorities take a final decision on the matter.

Court orders police to reconsider security withdrawal to former DGP Swaranjit Sen

The HC on Tuesday directed the State police department to reconsider its decision to scale down the security cover of retired Director-General of Police Swaranjit Sen. The single judge bench of Justice Madhavi Devi disposed of a writ filed by Sen, who served as the DGP of united AP between 2004 and 2006.

The petitioner approached the court seeking to set aside a recent State Review Committee order significantly reducing his security detail. The security scale down had stripped Sen of his bullet- resistant vehicle, two drivers, an armed guard contingent from the City Armed Reserve, and reduced his personal security officer cover.

In the petition, Sen sought directions to the Additional Director-General of Police (Intelligence) and the DGP to restore his security status. The court ordered authorities to review a formal representation submitted by the petitioner before finalising any changes to his protection.

During the proceedings, the Government Pleader (Home) strongly opposed the continuation of the high-level security cover. However, the court highlighted the distinct nature of security threats faced by retired police officers compared to former politicians.

Justice Devi noted that while security for political figures naturally concludes with their terms in office, police officers often face long-term risks due to their field operations. She emphasised that the petitioner had served in extremist-affected areas, which could leave him vulnerable to lingering animosity from insurgent groups.

The court ruled that the State must follow due process before withdrawing or reducing security for such officials. The bench ordered if the police department still deems the high-level security unnecessary after reviewing the petitioner's request, it must issue a formal show-cause notice.

Sen must be given a fair opportunity to submit an explanation and receive a personal hearing before any final decision is taken in accordance with the law.

HC orders probe into Cherlapally police station operating illegally from private building

The HC directed the State DGP to investigate the ‘unauthorised’ operation of the Cherlapally police station from a private residential building. The single bench of Justice E V Venugopal directed the DGP to conduct an inquiry and initiate action against the local Station House Officer within three months for failing to verify the property’s lease agreement.

The court issued the directive while hearing a writ filed by T Laxmanacharyulu of Safilguda. He sought an order to make the Cherlapally police vacate his private property in EC Nagar, Cherlapally ( Medchal-Malkajgiri district).

Representing the petitioner, counsel Vinod Singh informed the court that the owner had originally leased the building to the Cherlapally Notified Municipal Industrial Area Services Society for a monthly rent of Rs. 36,000. Without authorisation, the society then sub-let the premises to the local SHO to establish the police station.

Upon examining the lease records, Justice Venugopal observed that the original agreement contained no provision allowing the society to sub-let the property. The court found the agreement had expired in 2024. The SHO had failed to verify either the status of the lease or the absence of a sub-letting clause before occupying the building.

Singh argued that his client was afraid to ask the police to vacate the premises due to fear of intimidation by the SHO. The court was also informed that the police station had failed to pay the outstanding electricity bills for the property.

Unable to resolve the situation, the petitioner sent a formal representation to the DGP on February 27, 2026, requesting intervention. He approached the HC after receiving no response from the department.

Justice Venugopal emphasised that it is the SHO’s duty to thoroughly inspect property agreements before establishing a police station. With these directions and observations, the HC formally closed the writ.