The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 11, 2026) directed the Centre to provide an additional personal security officer (PSO) to Purnia MP Pappu Yadav without delay.

Justice Manoj Jain said the additional security is an interim measure and will remain in place until the government decides on Mr. Yadav’s representation seeking enhancement of his security cover.

The lawmaker has sought a countrywide Y+ security cover from the Centre, citing death threats allegedly received after his participation in protests in Parliament over the NEET controversy and issues concerning the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. He submitted his representation to the Centre on August 5.

During the hearing, the Centre’s counsel maintained that Mr. Yadav was already being provided “adequate security”. Justice Manoj Jain, however, took note of an untoward incident at the MP’s official residence in Delhi.

“There is something significant. He is the sitting MP,” the judge observed, adding that the security arrangement could be strengthened temporarily. “Despite there being adequate protection, some incident has taken place,” the court remarked.

Pending decision

The Centre’s standing counsel stated that Mr. Yadav’s representation was under consideration and would be decided within three weeks. He said the MP is currently protected by one PSO along with other security personnel.

When asked whether additional security could be provided until a decision was taken on Mr. Yadav’s representation, the Centre’s counsel submitted that security could not be enhanced without an assessment of the threat perception.

Mr. Yadav’s counsel said the MP would not press the petition at this stage if an additional security officer was provided as an interim measure.

The court consequently disposed of the writ petition as “not pressed” and directed the Centre to provide Mr. Yadav with one additional PSO without further delay.

Mr. Yadav’s counsel submitted that the Patna High Court had already directed Y+ security for Mr Yadav within Bihar and argued that similar protection was warranted across the country, including Delhi.

Referring to the alleged threats, the counsel told the court that a person had allegedly threatened to kill Mr. Yadav and a bounty of ₹51 lakh had purportedly been announced for his murder. He further claimed that the person making the threat had not yet been apprehended.

According to Mr. Yadav’s petition, the threats followed his participation in protests in Parliament.

Published - August 11, 2026 07:18 pm IST