The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed an order of the Tripura High Court by which it had sought to scrutinise the need for security cover given to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family members [Union of India v. Bikash Saha].
A vacation Bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala issued notice in the matter, and proceeded to stay the order passed by the High Court last week.
The High Court by way of its order, had sought original records of the threat perception to the Ambani family and also directed that the same be submitted in a sealed cover, stating that no further adjournment would be granted in the case.
The High Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) moved against the grant of security to Ambani and his family members.
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 High Court Bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice SG Chattopadhyay, however, insisted on the report being presented and posted the case for hearing on June 28.
The Central government meanwhile approached the Supreme Court in appeal.
In its plea before the apex court, the Central government 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.
Additionally, it was 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.
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.
“This individual in his PIL’s prayers restricts it to security of one family. Individual from tripura has no relation,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the top court on Wednesday.
“Issue notice. Orders of Tripura High Court shall remain stayed,” the apex court directed.
“Please consider staying further proceedings,” the SG requested.
“You think High Court will proceed further after stay?” the Bench asked.
“We have apprehensions,” SG replied.
“We are here for that,” the Bench responded.
