In a sharp rebuke to what it called a “frivolous and vexatious” petition, the Supreme Court of India on Friday dismissed yet another plea challenging the Z-plus security cover provided to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family. The top court reaffirmed its earlier position that such matters lie within the exclusive purview of government authorities and not public litigants with no legal standing.
This latest plea, filed by one Bikash Saha, marks the third such attempt to question the Ambani family’s government-approved security detail—an effort the apex court has consistently rejected.
Court to Petitioner: "Who Are You to Assess the Threat?"
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan dismissed the application with stern words. Emphasizing that the petitioner had "no locus" to bring the matter before the court, the judges reiterated that security decisions are an executive function, not a judicial one.
“Whether it is a politician or a businessman, it is for the state authorities to follow a process and take a decision accordingly. We are not here to further your process, whatever it might be,” the bench noted pointedly.
Saha's counsel had argued for periodic reassessment of the threat perception, citing that such matters cannot be presumed as permanent. But the court was unmoved. “Is this our domain?” the bench asked. “If something happens tomorrow, will you take responsibility?”
Advocate Mukul Rohatgi: ‘Litigation Amounts to Harassment’
Appearing on behalf of the Ambani family, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi was direct in his criticism of the petition, calling it an act of judicial harassment.
“How is this person concerned with assessing the security threat?” he said. “This amounts to harassment, plain and simple.”
The court concurred, issuing a clear warning to the petitioner to refrain from filing similar applications in the future. If continued, such actions may attract exemplary costs for wasting judicial time.
The 2022 Precedent Still Holds
This case is not the first time the judiciary has had to entertain and then shut down PILs related to the Ambani family's security cover. In July 2022, the Supreme Court closed a similar case also filed by Saha, reiterating that he lacked the necessary legal standing and that security allocations had already been reviewed and approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
At the time, senior advocate Harish Salve—representing the Ambanis—highlighted specific threats, including the February 2021 incident when an explosives-laden vehicle was found outside their Mumbai residence, Antilia. Salve argued that the family was not only high-profile but also an integral part of India's economic framework, and therefore justified in receiving adequate protection.
Security Bills Fully Paid by Ambanis
A major point often overlooked in public discourse is that the Ambani family pays for their security. The court reaffirmed that the government merely provides the framework, and all costs are borne by the beneficiaries themselves.
“The government sends the bill for the security, and the same is fully paid by the respondents,” Salve had said in the 2022 hearing.
This undermines claims that public funds are being misused to safeguard private individuals and adds weight to the judiciary’s repeated stance of non-intervention.
Past Attempts Also Rejected
This isn’t an isolated case. In 2019, a PIL filed in the Bombay High Court sought withdrawal of security cover for the Ambanis. It was dismissed. An appeal to the Supreme Court in 2020 also met the same fate, with the court clearly stating:
“It is for the State to assess and review the threat perception of individuals on a case-to-case basis.”
The judiciary has consistently shown restraint in security-related decisions, recognizing that executive agencies possess the expertise and intelligence access required to make informed choices.
Conclusion: Judicial Time Is Not for Sensational Petitions
The Supreme Court's latest order sends a strong message to individuals attempting to use the judiciary for sensational, publicity-driven litigations. Security assessments, especially for high-profile individuals like Mukesh Ambani, are carried out by professional intelligence and law enforcement agencies, not armchair analysts or public interest petitioners with no locus standi.
As India continues to grapple with real and evolving security threats, the integrity and independence of executive decisions—especially in matters of national security—must be preserved. The court has once again drawn a clear line between genuine public interest and misplaced activism.