The Supreme Court on Friday strongly criticised a petitioner for repeatedly challenging the Z+ security cover provided to Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani and his family, warning of “exemplary costs” for any further similar attempts.
A vacation bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan dismissed the application filed by one Bikash Saha, who sought the revocation of the highest-level security cover granted to the Ambani family. The court noted that Saha had “no locus standi” to file such a plea and expressed disapproval of his repeated attempts to litigate the issue.
“The applicant (Bikash Saha) has no locus standi to challenge the security provided by the State after duly evaluating the threat inputs, and we warned that any further proceedings will lead to the Court imposing exemplary costs on him,” the bench said.
Reiterating that the Z+ security cover extended to Mukesh Ambani, his wife Nita Ambani, and children Anant, Akash, and Isha should continue, the top court dismissed Saha’s claims as unfounded and outside the judicial domain.
“Is it 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?” the court questioned sharply during the hearing.
Further chastising the petitioner, the court remarked,
“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?”
“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,” the bench added sternly.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the Ambani family, supported the government’s decision to provide Z+ security based on threat perception and objected to Saha’s plea.
“The security is granted by the government, considering the threat perception. This gentleman (Saha) has nothing to do with it,” Rohatgi stated.
Rohatgi also informed the court that Saha had previously filed a similar PIL in Tripura against the same security arrangement. That case was transferred to the Supreme Court, where the bench had already ruled against Saha, setting aside the Tripura High Court’s order and issuing strong remarks on the petitioner’s interference.
