Delhi HC Directs Centre to Provide Additional PSO to MP Pappu Yadav
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, directed the Centre to provide an additional personal security officer (PSO) without delay to Purnia MP Pappu Yadav. The direction comes after the lawmaker faced death threats and an untoward incident occurred at his official residence in Delhi.
Justice Manoj Jain stated that the additional security officer is an interim measure. It will remain in place until the central government decides on Yadav's representation seeking an enhancement of his security cover across the country.
Yadav submitted a representation to the Centre on August 5, 2026, requesting countrywide Y+ security cover. He cited death threats allegedly received following his participation in protests in Parliament concerning the NEET controversy and issues related to the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.
During the hearing, the Centre's standing counsel maintained that the MP was already receiving adequate protection, consisting of one PSO along with other security personnel. The counsel argued that security could not be enhanced without a formal assessment of threat perception, noting that Yadav's representation was under consideration and would be decided within three weeks.
However, Justice Manoj Jain noted that Yadav is a sitting MP and highlighted the untoward incident at his official residence in Delhi. The court remarked that despite existing protection, an incident had taken place, justifying a temporary strengthening of his security arrangement.
Counsel representing Yadav told the court that a person had allegedly threatened to kill the MP, purportedly announcing a ₹51 lakh bounty for his murder. The counsel added that the individual making the threat had not yet been apprehended.
Yadav's counsel also pointed out that the Patna High Court had previously directed Y+ security cover for the MP within Bihar, arguing that similar protection was necessary across the country, including in Delhi.
Following the court's direction to provide one additional PSO immediately as an interim measure, Yadav's counsel agreed not to press the writ petition at this stage. The Delhi High Court consequently disposed of the petition as not pressed.
