Supreme Court rejects plea against Ambani’s Z-plus security

The court pulled up the petitioner, Bikash Saha, for filing a fresh application despite previous court orders holding that he had no legal standing (locus) to raise such issues

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an attempt to challenge the Z-plus security cover provided to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family, cautioning the petitioner for repeatedly seeking judicial intervention in a matter best left to state authorities.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Ambani family, told the bench that the litigation amounted to harassment. (Reuters)

A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan pulled up the petitioner, Bikash Saha, for filing a fresh application despite previous court orders holding that he had no legal standing (locus) to raise such issues. “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,” the bench said, dismissing the plea as “frivolous” and “vexatious.”

Issuing a warning, the top 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.”

Saha’s counsel, during the Friday hearing, sought periodic reassessment of the security threat to the Ambani family, contending that threat perception could not be presumed to be permanent. However, the court found the plea to be without merit, especially in light of 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, appearing for the Ambani family, told the bench that the litigation amounted to harassment. “How is this person concerned with assessing the security threat?” he asked.

When the petitioner’s counsel argued that a review board was to meet soon and that security threats should be re-evaluated 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 cited its July 2022 decision, in which it had 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 that matter too, Saha was the petitioner, and the apex court had observed that he had no locus to question the security provided to the Ambanis, who reside in Mumbai and pay for their security services.

At the time, the ministry of home affairs had assured the court that the Ambanis’ threat perception had been thoroughly assessed, and that the Z-plus security provided to Mukesh Ambani and the Y-plus cover for his wife, Nita Ambani, were warranted. The court found the PIL to be misplaced, particularly as a similar plea before the Bombay high court had already been dismissed.

Appearing for the Ambanis in the 2022 case, senior advocate Harish Salve had pointed to specific threats faced by the family, including the February 2021 incident when an explosives-laden vehicle was found parked outside their Mumbai residence with a threat note. Salve also highlighted that the Ambanis were prominent public figures whose companies employ millions and are integral to the country’s economic fabric.

“The government sends the bill for the security, and the same is fully paid by the respondents (Ambanis),” Salve had argued. “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 that position, stating unequivocally that the petitioner “has no locus to assail the Z-plus security given to the private respondents” and that any such assessments must be made strictly in accordance with government guidelines and not at the behest of individuals with no connection to the matter.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has had to deal with similar petitions. A previous PIL filed in the Bombay high court in 2019 by one Himanshu Agarwal seeking the withdrawal of security cover to the Ambanis was dismissed. An appeal against that order was also turned down by the apex court in October 2020, with a categorical observation: “It is for the State to assess and review the threat perception of individuals on a case-to-case basis.”