The Supreme Court of India on Friday firmly dismissed a fresh plea challenging the Z-plus security cover provided to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family. The petition, filed by Bikash Saha, sought the revocation of the highest level of security accorded to Ambani, his wife Nita Ambani, and their children, Anant, Akash, and Isha. This is not the first time Saha has approached the courts on this matter; his previous attempts, including a public interest litigation in the Tripura High Court, were also set aside by the apex court.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan criticized the petitioner for repeatedly filing what it termed “frivolous” and “vexatious” applications. The court made it clear that such repeated challenges would not be tolerated, warning Saha that any further similar petitions could attract exemplary costs. “No arm twisting of the court’s process can be allowed. Don’t do this. This is a very serious issue and we are warning you. Don’t think there is a goldmine to be snatched over here and we are here to facilitate your process. This is something sacrosanct, whether it’s a political person or a businessman, the state will take whatever precaution it has to take,” Justice Manmohan observed during the proceedings.
Security Decisions Rest with State, Not Judiciary:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the decision to provide security cover, especially of the Z-plus category, is based on threat assessments conducted by authorized government agencies. The bench emphasized that such matters fall strictly within the purview of the executive and are not for the judiciary to decide unless there is a demonstrable change in circumstances or evidence of misuse. “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 judges remarked, underscoring the limits of judicial intervention in national security matters.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Ambani family, pointed out that the issue had already been resolved by the court in its previous orders. He stressed that the petitioner had no direct connection to the case and that the Ambani family has always borne the cost of their security, as directed by the court. The bench concurred, noting that Saha had no locus standi, or legal standing, to challenge the security arrangements, which are determined after careful evaluation by the state based on inputs from intelligence agencies.
Court Upholds Z-Plus Security, Cautions Against Misuse of Judicial Process:
The Supreme Court’s order reaffirmed that the Z-plus security cover for the Ambani family should continue, both within India and abroad, as previously mandated. The bench highlighted that the security threat to the Ambanis had been assessed by relevant authorities and that there was no new material or evidence presented by the petitioner to justify a change in the existing arrangement. The court also closed the door on any further litigation on the matter by cautioning Saha against future filings, stating that continued misuse of the judicial process for personal or publicity-driven motives would not be tolerated.
The justices further clarified that the judiciary’s role is not to interfere with executive decisions regarding individual security, particularly when such decisions are grounded in intelligence inputs and national security considerations. “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 without merit.
Broader Implications for High-Profile Security and Judicial Oversight:
This latest decision by the Supreme Court sends a clear message about the boundaries between the judiciary and the executive, especially in sensitive matters involving national security and high-profile individuals. The repeated attempts to challenge the Ambani family’s security cover have been met with increasing impatience by the court, which views such petitions as an unnecessary burden on judicial resources and a potential distraction from more pressing legal matters.
The ruling also reinforces the principle that threat assessments and security arrangements for individuals, whether political figures or business leaders, are best left to the expertise of government agencies. The court’s insistence on upholding this separation of powers is seen as a move to prevent the misuse of public interest litigation for personal or sensationalist purposes.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s rejection of the plea against Ambani’s Z-plus security cover underscores its commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and respecting the domain of the executive in matters of security. The Ambani family’s security arrangements, as determined by the state and at their own expense, will remain in place, and the court has made it clear that further challenges without substantive grounds will not be entertained.
