Security for Mukesh Ambani, family: Supreme Court to hear Centre's plea against Tripura High Court orders

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge by the Central government to orders passed by the Tripura High Court while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) moved against the grant of security to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family members [Union of India v. Bikash Saha]..Solicitor General (SG) for India Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala, contending that the individual security of one family could not be the subject matter of a PIL. "Will hear tomorrow," the Bench said. .The Tripura High Court last week sought an original record of the threat perception to the family in a sealed cover, and listed the case on Tuesday, stating that no further adjournment would be granted. The SG, however, argued against such a direction, stating,"It is territorially barred. Order passed on 21st, summoned Home Department to give security details given by State.".The High Court had sought the report while relying on the submission that the family was being provided security by the government based on an acute threat perception as found by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The Court had previously also sought a status report of the latest threat perception vis-à-vis the Ambani family. However, the same not presented by the Central government, which reasoned that the matter had already been decided by the Bombay High Court.The Bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice SG Chattopadhyay, however, insisted on the report being presented..In this light, the government sought three weeks' time. This request was denied by the Court, which recorded,"This Court is of the considered view that for the purpose of producing before the Court the present threat perception as assessed by the Home Department such amount of time is totally unnecessary." Therefore, the case was adjourned to June 28, on which date the government was asked to depute a responsible officer to come with the original record of the threat perception in a sealed cover..In its plea before the apex court, the Central government has argued that the PIL before the High Court was filed by an individual person who had no locus in the matter and was just a "meddlesome interloper".It was brought to the attention of the top court that a similar PIL with identical prayers was filed before the Bombay High Court, but was dismissed, and that order was confirmed by the Supreme Court.“As such, the prayers made in the subject writ petition were already adjudicated upon not only by the Hon'ble High Court but also this Hon'ble Court and, therefore, the subject matter issue being no more res-integra, the subject PIL was liable to be dismissed,” reads the petition..Further, it was contended that neither were the Ambanis residents of Tripura, nor did any cause of action in the matter arise in the State."Thus, in the respectful submission of the Petitioner, the very indulgence of the Hon’ble High Court to judicially review the decision of the Central Government to provide security cover to some of the respondents suffers from patent and manifest errors of law and is perverse requiring interference of this Hon’ble Court.".Additionally, it had informed the High Court that ‘Z+’ category security was given to Mukesh Ambani in 2013 and ‘Y+' category Central Police Reserve Force (CRPF) cover was given to his wife Neeta Ambani in 2016 on the basis of inputs and assessment reports received from intelligence and investigation units.The PIL was deemed frivolous with regards to their children Akash, Anant and Isha, as they were not granted any central security cover."Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court has also lost sight of the fact that, to provide a security cover or not to a civilian on the basis of threat perception is a technical matter which requires the expertise of trained persons manning law, order and security of the State. Therefore, these decision taken by such experts is not judicially reviewable..." the plea goes on to state..[Read our live-coverage of the hearing]