'Not our domain': Supreme Court refuses plea against Z+ security cover to Mukesh Ambani, family

The Supreme Court yesterday again refused a plea filed by one Bikash Saha challenging the Z-plus security cover provided to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family.

While doing so, a bench of Justices PK Mishra and Manmohan warned the petitioner Saha to not keep filing such petitions repeatedly.

The bench observed that government authorities provide security after evaluating threats, and it was not under the court's domain to decide on the issue.

In 2022, Supreme Court had permitted the Central government to continue providing security cover to Mukesh Ambani and his family.

The Supreme Court was then hearing Union of India’s appeal against the Tripura High Court order in a plea by Saha, directing the Centre to place before it files regarding threat perception and assessment report of the top industrialist and his family. Supreme Court had then stated that there was no need for proceedings before the Tripura High Court to continue.

It was the Centre's stand that High Court passed the impugned orders in a PIL filed by an individual person, namely Bikash Saha, who had no locus in the matter and is just a meddlesome interloper, claiming himself to be a social activist and student by profession.

The government had further alleged that said PIL is thoroughly misconceived, frivolous and motivated, where no violation of any fundamental right was even pleaded, but the High Court has sought to exercise its judicial review jurisdiction over a decision, which has been taken by trained experts on public order, individual and national security.

It was Centre's contention that the High Court failed to appreciate that the Ambani family is neither residents of the state of Tripura nor any part of cause of action remotely arising from Tripura existed, and thus the Court had no territorial jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, the SLP argues.

Centre had further submitted that when the matter was heard by the High Court, the Law officer appearing on its behalf had informed the High Court that a similar PIL petition, with identical prayers, earlier filed before Bombay High Court was dismissed, which order was confirmed by the Supreme Court in an SLP, with slight modifications and as such, the prayers made in the subject writ petition were already adjudicated upon, thus, the issue being no more res-integra, the PIL was liable to be dismissed.

Case Title: Union of India vs. Bikash Saha and Ors