NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday criticised the petitioner for repeatedly challenging the Z+ security cover provided to Reliance Industries Chairman and billionaire businessman Mukesh Ambani and his family.
The application, filed by one Bikash Saha, sought a direction from the top court to revoke the Z+ security cover given to Ambani and his family members.
The top court not only dismissed Shah’s plea but also warned him of imposing exemplary costs if he continued to pursue this matter or file similar petitions in the future.
“The applicant (Bikash Shah) 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,” said, a two-judge vacation bench of the top court, headed by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan.
While passing the order on Friday, the apex court bench reiterated that the Z+ security cover provided to Mukesh Ambani, his wife Neeta Ambani and children Anant, Aakash and Isha should continue to be given.
Rjecting Saha’s plea, the top court observed, “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?.”
Coming down heavily on Saha, the court further added, “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 court opined.
During the course of the hearing, senior advocate and former Attorney General (AG) of India, Mukul Rohatgi, for Mukesh Ambani and his family, objected to the plea.
“The security is granted by the government, considering the threat perception. This gentleman (Saha) has nothing to do with it,” he said.
Rohatgi further added that Saha had first filed a PIL in Tripura against the security which we get from the Government of India, for which we pay. That matter came here, the Union brought it here, the Supreme Court passed strictures saying he has no business in doing all this, and the order of the Tripura High Court was set aside.