Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Ambani’s Z-Plus Security: “Frivolous & Vexatious”
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 13th June, The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging Mukesh Ambani’s Z-plus security cover, calling the plea “frivolous & vexatious.” The Court made it clear that such petitions waste judicial time and serve no public interest.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an attempt to challenge the Z-plus security cover granted to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family, cautioning the petitioner for repeatedly seeking judicial intervention in a matter best left to state authorities.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan slammed the petitioner, Bikash Saha, for filing a new application despite previous court rulings stating he lacked the legal standing (locus) to raise such issues.
Labeling the plea as “frivolous” and “vexatious”, the bench stated,
“The petitioner has no wherewithal nor has shown any material to show us that there is any change in the security threat to the private respondent,”
Issuing a warning, the Court said,
“We caution the petitioner not to indulge in any similar exercise in the future, failing which this court shall consider imposing exemplary costs on him.”
During the hearing, Saha’s counsel requested periodic reassessment of the security threat to the Ambani family, arguing that threat perceptions should not be assumed to be permanent.
However, the Court found this argument lacking merit, particularly given its own July 2022 judgment affirming the Ambanis’ entitlement to security cover and closing similar proceedings pending before the Tripura High Court.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Ambani family, informed the bench that the litigation was a form of harassment.
He questioned,
“How is this person concerned with assessing the security threat?”
When the petitioner’s counsel contended that a review board was scheduled to meet soon and that security threats should be reevaluated over time, the bench responded sharply,
“Is this our domain? Is this for the Supreme Court to decide who should be given what kind of security? Who are you to assess the threat perception? It is for the government of India to decide. If something happens tomorrow, will you take responsibility?”
The Court added,
“Whether it is a politician or a businessman, it is for the state authorities to follow a process and take a decision accordingly. We are not here to further your process, whatever it might be.”
The Court referenced its July 2022 decision, which directed the Centre to continue providing security to the Ambani family and closed proceedings initiated through a public interest litigation (PIL) before the Tripura High Court, in which Saha was also the petitioner.
The apex court had noted that he had no locus to question the security arrangements for the Ambanis, who reside in Mumbai and finance their own security services.
At that time, the Ministry of Home Affairs assured the Court that the Ambanis’ threat perception had been thoroughly evaluated, confirming that the Z-plus security for Mukesh Ambani and the Y-plus cover for his wife, Nita Ambani, were justified. The Court found the PIL to be misplaced, especially since a similar plea before the Bombay High Court had already been dismissed.
In the 2022 case, senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the Ambanis, referenced specific threats faced by the family, including a notable incident in February 2021 when an explosives-laden vehicle was discovered parked outside their Mumbai home, accompanied by a threat note. Salve emphasized that the Ambanis are significant public figures whose companies employ millions and play a crucial role in the country’s economic landscape.
Salve argued,
“The government sends the bill for the security, and the same is fully paid by the respondents (Ambanis),”
“If the government feels that they deserve security, it is to be given. It is unfortunate that this kind of slur is created and when courts start to entertain these petitions, it is even worse.”
In Friday’s order, the bench reaffirmed this stance, clearly stating that the petitioner “has no locus to assail the Z-plus security given to the private respondents” and that any assessments must adhere strictly to government guidelines, rather than being influenced by individuals with no relevant connection to the issue.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has encountered similar petitions. A previous PIL filed in the Bombay High Court in 2019 by Himanshu Agarwal, requesting the withdrawal of security cover for the Ambanis, was dismissed.
An appeal against that ruling was also rejected by the apex court in October 2020, with a definitive statement, “It is for the State to assess and review the threat perception of individuals on a case-to-case basis.”
