SUPREME COURT CAUTIONS PETITIONER OVER REPEATED CHALLENGES TO MUKESH AMBANI FAMILY’S SECURITY; ORDERS CONTINUATION OF Z+ COVER:

On June 13, the Supreme Court issued a strong warning to a litigant who repeatedly sought to revoke the Z+ security cover granted to billionaire businessman Mukesh Ambani and his family. The bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan, dismissed the latest application filed by Bikash Saha and reiterated that the security cover for the Ambanis—Mukesh, Nita, Anant, Akash, and Isha must continue both within India and abroad.

The application in question sought clarification regarding the Court’s February 2023 order, which had reaffirmed an earlier direction granting the Ambani family Z+ security based on threat assessments conducted by the government. The Court stated firmly that the petitioner had no legal standing to challenge the security arrangements, which were determined after a detailed evaluation by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The bench stressed that if such frivolous applications continued, the Court would consider imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Ambanis, pointed out that this was not the petitioner’s first attempt to interfere with the matter. He reminded the Court that Saha had initially filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Tripura High Court challenging the security arrangements. That matter had already been transferred to the Supreme Court, which had set aside the Tripura High Court’s orders and observed that the petitioner lacked locus standi.

Despite this, Saha filed multiple applications, including the present miscellaneous application, each seeking similar relief. The Court found this repeated litigation to be not only baseless but also an abuse of judicial process. The bench emphasized that issues of threat perception and security provision fall within the domain of the executive, specifically the government authorities equipped to assess and respond to such risks.

The Court further clarified that the Z+ security cover should not be limited to the Ambanis’ residence in Mumbai or to Maharashtra alone. Given their business interests across the country and abroad, restricting the security geographically would defeat its purpose. The Court had previously ruled that when the Ambani family is in India, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Maharashtra government are responsible for ensuring their protection. When they travel abroad, the responsibility falls solely on the Ministry of Home Affairs. Importantly, all costs related to the security cover are to be borne by the Ambani family themselves.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the application, labeling it as both frivolous and vexatious. It reiterated its earlier stance that Bikash Saha had no standing in the matter and warned him against filing similar petitions in the future. The Court underscored that matters concerning national security and personal protection are not to be manipulated through repeated, baseless legal interventions.