On June 13, 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan dismissed a petition by Bikash Saha seeking revocation of Z+ security for billionaire Mukesh Ambani and his family. The Court not only declined but also issued a stern warning against filing similar “frivolous” petitions, reiterating that the evaluation of threat and grant of state security lies exclusively with government agencies.
Objective
The purpose of this article is to:
- Explain the Supreme Court’s decision and rationale.
- Contextualize the legal and procedural framework of security cover in India.
- Trace the petitioner’s attempts and prior judicial responses.
- Analyse the implications legally, socially, and politically.
- Conclude by summarizing the key takeaways and future outlook.
Background
1. Understanding Security Cover in India
- Security categories range from SPG (Special Protection Group) to Z+, with Z+ being the highest civilian-level cover—often reserved for top VVIPs under perceived risk.
- The granting authority is the central and respective state governments, relying on inputs from intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.
2. Mukesh Ambani and Reliance
- Mukesh Ambani is among India’s highest-profile private individuals—as chairman of Reliance Industries—which heightens his visibility and security vulnerability.
History of Legal Proceedings
A. Tripura High Court PIL (2022)
- Petitioner Bikash Saha filed a PIL in the High Court of Tripura seeking to revoke the Z+ cover.
- The Tripura bench ordered the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to produce classified threat-assessment files.
- The central government moved the Supreme Court, which stayed the Tripura order and set aside the custodial disclosure.
B. Supreme Court Orders (July 2022)
- A vacation bench stayed the Tripura HC order; in a subsequent three-judge bench ruling, the SC affirmed Z+ cover for Mukesh, Nita, Akash, Anant, and Isha Ambani—nationally and abroad.
- The ruling specified that the Ambanis pay for their security, which is implemented by MHA and Maharashtra authorities domestically, and by the MHA overseas.
C. 2023 Clarification Petition
- Saha again sought clarification. The Supreme Court reiterated its original order, emphasizing that the cover is not city-specific but nationwide and international.
2. Government & Ambani Family’s Defense
- Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Ambanis, argued:
- The petitioner lacks legal standing (locus standi).
- Threat analysis is a government prerogative.
- Repeated litigations cause harassment and misuse of judicial process.
3. Supreme Court’s Rationale and Warnings
- The bench unanimously dismissed the plea, stating:
- The petitioner had no locus; threat evaluation is not within SC’s mandate.
- The matter had already been settled in multiple prior judgments—no fresh prima facie evidence was presented.
- The court will impose exemplary costs for similar future petitions—warning of misuse of judicial time.
- “New genre of jurisprudence… not our domain,” said Justice Manmohan, stressing courts are not designed to arbitrate individual security rights.
Analysis
1. Judicial Deference to Executive
- The ruling reaffirms courts’ reluctance to intrude into executive assessments of threat and security—especially for prominent private persons.
- Risks include setting a precedent allowing anyone to challenge others’ security allocation.
2. Locus Standi and Public Interest
- Under Article 32/226, petitioners in PILs must demonstrate a cogent public interest—not merely personal curiosity or vendetta.
- The court deemed Saha’s actions vexatious—a legal classification for frivolous repeat petitions.
3. Security Costs and Funding
- Ambani family bears the financial responsibility for their Z+ cover, reducing the burden on state coffers (public money is not used).
- The judiciary clearly positioned cost-of-security as a non-justiciable policy for private individuals.
4. Implications for Civil Liberties
- This case sets a boundary: public interest mustn’t be conflated with individual grievances, particularly absent evidence-based threat evaluation.
- It reinforces how prominent individuals may seek and receive elaborate protection within the legal framework.
