Supreme Court Warns Litigant For Repeatedly Challenging State Security Of Mukesh Ambani Family; Directs To Continue Z+ Cover
The Supreme Court today(June 13) pulled up a litigant who filed an application seeking to revoke the Z+ security cover given to Reliance Industries Ltd Chairman and billionaire businessman Mukesh Ambani and his family.
Reiterating that the security cover to Mukesh Ambani, his wife Neeta Ambani and children Anant, Aakash and Isha should continue to be given, the bench warned the applicant against filing applications in future, given that his previous applications were also not entertained.
The application was filed by one Bikash Saha seeking clarification with respect to the Court’s February 2023 order whereby the Court reiterated its previous order providing Z+ security given to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family throughout the Country and abroad. The costs have to be borne by Ambani family.
The Court remarked that the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the security provided by the State after duly evaluating the threat inputs, and warned that any further proceedings will lead to the Court imposing exemplary costs on him.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan passed the order.
At the outset, when the Counsel for the Respondent began his argument, stating that the threat perception cannot be considered in perpetuity, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Mukesh Ambani and his family, objected to the plea. He stated that the security is granted by the government, considering the threat perception.
He said: “Please see the Respondents 2 to 6 in the appeal…so this gentleman has nothing to do with us. He first filed a PIL in Tripura in regards to our security for which we get from the Government of India, for which we pay. That matter came here, the Union brought it here, the Supreme Court passed strictures saying he has no business in doing all this, and the order of the Tripura High Court was set aside. After that, he filed another clarification, which was also disposed of by this Court. How is that your concern? Now, he has filed another clarification application in a disposed of matter. How is he concerned?”
On this, Justice Manmohan said: “What we want to understand, is the Supreme Court to decide who is to be given what security? This is something new which has popped up. New genre of jurisprudence. Is this our domain?…Who are you to decide the threat perception? Government of India will decide that, no? Tomorrow, if some mishap happens, will you take responsibility? Or will the Court take responsibility for it?…No arm twisting of the Court’s process. Don’t do this, this is very serious and we are warning you. Don’t think there is a goldmine to be snatched over here and we are not here to facilitate your process. This is something sacroscant, whether its a political person or a businessman, the State will take whatever precaution it has to take.”
Justice Mishra recalled the previous order passed by the Supreme Court wherein the Court clearly said the Respondent has no locus. Nevertheless, the Respondent’s counsel continued to state that the personnel engaged in providing security are needed for the national security of the nation.
However, rejecting the plea, the Court passed orders warning the respondent from filing frivolous applications: “This MA has been preferred seeking issuance of necessary directions..The issue brought before this court in this application emanates from the orders passed by this court on 22.7.22 in SLP no…wherein this Court, observed thus…Thereafter, the petitioner preferred M.A. seeking similar relief like the present one, and this court ordered dated…refused to entertain the MA, at the same time reiterating the previous order…It is surprising, that despite this Court having observed in its first order that the present applicant does not have locus standi in this matter and the threat perception is based on the inputs received by concerned agencies, and this court cannot entertain in the present petition filed by the petitioner, who is the applicant herein, yet the petitioner has ventured to file a similar pray time and again.
Earlier, by filing application and now in the present M.A. It is also significant to note that in the first order, SLP, the Union of India submitted that threat perception to Respondents 2 and 6 has been thoroughly examined by the Union of India before providing them with security cover. When the matter stands thus, this miscellanous application is again preferred, which is not only frivolous but also vexatious. We will again reiterate the petitioner has no locus seeking prayer to withdraw security cover granted by the Union and State of Maharashtra…the petitioner has not produced any material that there is any significant change in the security perception…we refuse to entertain this miscellanous application, observing that Z plus security cover offered to the Respondents 2 to 6 will continued to be given…we warn the petitioner to not to indulge in similar exercise in future, failing which this Court shall consider imposing exemplatory cost.”
To recall, the issue began from the Gauhati High Court, where the Respondent challenged Ambanis’ security cover. The Union preferred the matter to the Supreme Court, which subsequently passed an order providing security to Ambanis. Thereafter, a clarification application was filed by the Respondent seeking clarification of the Court’s order which again the Court rejected. In its February 2023 order, the Supreme Court directed that the Highest Z+ Security Cover provided to billionaire businessman Mukesh Ambani and his family is not restricted to Mumbai, but be made available across India and also when they are travelling abroad. The cost, as per the order of the Supreme Court, is to be borne by the Ambanis.
A Bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, in the Febraury 2023 order, noted that when Mukesh Ambani and his family are within India, State of Maharashtra and the Ministry of Home Affairs are to ensure their security. When they are travelling abroad, the Ministry of Home Affairs would ensure the same. Noting that the issue of security cover provided to the Ambanis is the subject matter of litigation in different parts of the country, the Bench passed the present order to give quietus to the disputes.
The Bench passed the order in a Miscellaneous Application filed by one Bikash Saha in the Centre’s Special Leave Petition challenging Tripura High Court’s interim orders directing the the Ministry of Home Affairs to produce the original files regarding threat perception in relation to Mukesh Ambani, his wife Nita Ambani and their children Akash, Anant and Isha. The High Court directed that an officer from the MHA should appear before it with the relevant files in sealed cover on June 28, 2022.
The Court opined that if there is a threat for which security cover is provided, and that too at their own expense, it cannot be restricted to a particular geographic location. Considering that their business activities are across the country and also outside it, the purpose of granting security cover would be lost if it is restricted to a place or area. Moreover, noting that in its order dated 22.07.2022, the Supreme Court has already adjudicated that the original writ petition before the High Court did not have locus, the miscellaneous application at his behest cannot be entertained.
Case Details: UNION OF INDIA vs BIKASH SAHA|MA 1080-1081/2025 in SLP(C) No. 11164-11165/2022
