The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up a litigant for filling repeated pleas and rejected his petition seeking revocation of the 'Z' plus security cover provided to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family members, saying arm-twisting of the court's process cannot be allowed.
A partial working day bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan, which warned petitioner Bikash Saha for filing "frivolous" and "vexatious" pleas one after the other on the issue, said the court will be constrained to impose cost on him if he indulges in filing such petitions in future.Saha moved an application in a disposed of petition seeking clarification of a February 2023 order rejecting his plea for revoking the security cover of the Reliance Industries chairman and his family members on the ground that he had no locus standi in the matter.
Justice Manomhan told Saha's counsel, "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." The bench also told the counsel that the Supreme Court cannot decide who is to be given what security cover and it is only the Centre and the state, which, based on the threat perception analysed by various agencies, decide what precautionary steps are needed to be taken.
"This is something new which has popped up. New genre of jurisprudence. Is this our domain? Who are you to decide the threat perception? It is the Government of India that will decide. Tomorrow, if something happens, will you take responsibility? Or will the court take responsibility for it," the bench asked the counsel.The counsel for Saha contended that the threat perception cannot be considered in perpetuity.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mukesh Ambani and his family, pointed out that the petitioner (Saha) has been repeatedly filing these kinds of petitions and this court dismissed his two earlier petitions.
Seeking imposition of cost on the petitioner to deter him from filing such petitions, Rohatgi submitted that the security cover is granted by the government, considering the threat perceptions.Rohatgi said the petitioner has no connection with the Ambani family and had filed a PIL in Tripura for revoking the security cover, provided by the Centre and paid for by the businessman.The counsel for the petitioner again submitted that the security cover be revoked as the personnel are required for the service of the nation.The bench dismissed the plea and recorded the orders passed in the previous petitions filed first in 2022 and then in 2023.
"It is surprising that despite this court having observed in its first order that the present petitioner does not have the locus standi in this matter and the threat perception is based on the inputs received by the concerned agencies, and this court cannot entertain the petition… Yet he has ventured to file a similar prayer time and again," the bench recorded.
The bench said in previous rounds of litigation, the Centre submitted that the threat perceptions to Mukesh Ambani and his family members have been thoroughly examined before providing them with security cover. In its February 2023 order, the top court directed that the 'Z' plus security cover provided to Ambani and his family was not restricted to Mumbai and be made available across India and also when they are travelling abroad.It said the cost of the security cover is to be borne by the Ambani family, and noted that when Mukesh Ambani and his family are within India, the Maharashtra government and the Ministry of Home Affairs are to ensure their security.
I
Follow us
