Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Justice NV Ramana today permitted the Central government to continue providing security cover to  Mukesh Ambani and his family.

Court was hearing Union of India’s appeal against the Tripura High Court order directing the Centre to place before it files regarding threat perception and assessment report of the top industrialist and his family.

The bench, also consisting of Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, stated that there was no need for proceedings before the Tripura High Court to continue. 

On June 29, 2022, a vacation bench of the top court, consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala stayed the impugned orders of the Tripura High Court directing the Centre to place the above-mentioned documents before it. 

It is to be noted that security has been granted to Ambani and his family based on these reports. The centre had challenged the two impugned orders by the High Court dated May 31 and June 21, where the above direction was passed.

Earlier, SG Tushar Mehta had sought an urgent listing of the matter, and submitted that the security provided to Ambanis has nothing to do with the Tripura government.

It is 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 has 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 is Centre's contention that the High Court has 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 has 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