Supreme Court rejects plea against security cover to Ambanis: Who are you to decide threat level?

“Is 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,” asked Justice Manmohan.

“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?” Justice Manmohan said.

Saying there can be no arm-twisting of the court’s process, the judge cautioned the applicant, “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… We are not 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.”

Rejecting Saha’s plea, the court said in its order that it had passed orders in the matter on July 22, 2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking similar relief as in the present one but this was rejected and the July 22 order was reiterated.

“It is surprising that despite this court having observed in its first order that the present applicant does not have the locus standi in this matter and the threat perception is based on the inputs received by concerned agencies, and this court cannot entertain in the present petition filed by the petitioner, who is the applicant herein, yet the petitioner has ventured to file a similar plea time and again,” the order said.

The court pointed out that while hearing the plea the first time, the Centre had “submitted that threat perception… has been thoroughly examined… before providing them with security cover. When the matter stands thus, this miscellaneous application is again preferred, which is not only frivolous but also vexatious.”

Reiterating that the petitioner has no locus standi to seek withdrawal of the security extended by the Centre and Maharashtra, the court noted that Saha “had not produced any material that there is any significant change in the security perception”.

Refusing to entertain the plea, the court directed that the security given to Ambani and family will continue. It warned the petitioner “not to indulge in similar exercise in future, failing which this court shall consider imposing exemplary cost.”

Saha had initially filed a PIL raising the prayer before the Tripura High Court, which directed the Home Ministry to produce the relevant records regarding the threat perception. This the Centre challenged before the SC, which upheld the security for the Ambanis.

Saha thereafter filed a fresh application seeking some clarification of the July 22 order. He contended that there is a lot of scope of misinterpretation of the July 22 order, unless it is clarified that its scope is restricted to providing security cover only within the state of Maharashtra, which is the place of business and residence of the respondents.

In its February 27, 2023 order, the SC clarified that the security cover provided to them will not be restricted to Mumbai but all over India and also while travelling abroad.

The court also clarified that “the entire expenses and cost of providing Z+ security cover…within the territory of India or abroad shall be borne by them”.