Ambani's After Threat Call

SC Allows Centre To Retain Security Cover Of Ambani Family

Ambani's After Threat Call

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the central government to continue providing security cover to Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani and his family in Mumbai.

A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli quashed proceedings in the PIL pending before Tripura High Court challenging security to the Ambanis.
The apex court questioning the locus of the petitioner, said that there was no reason for proceedings to continue before the Tripura High Court which is scrutinising the need for the security. It noted that the family was paying cost of security provided by the government.

“We see no reason for the proceedings in this case to continue before the Tripura High Court,” said the bench.

Earlier, the vacation bench had stayed the High Court orders that had sought from Centre the details of threat perception based on which security cover was provided to the Ambanis.

The Centre had challenged in the top court the orders of the High Court seeking security details of the Ambani family.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had told the apex court that the High Court had sought details of threat perception based on which security cover was provided to the Ambanis in Mumbai.

Solicitor General had said that the security provided to a family in Mumbai has nothing to do with Tripura government and that High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the PIL.

Central Government had filed the appeal against High Court’s order asking the government to place the original file maintained by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding threat perception and assessment report of Ambani family prepared by it.

The appeal in the apex court said “the PIL is filed by an individual person who had no locus in the matter and was just a meddlesome interloper, claiming himself to be a social activist and student by profession.”

“The petition is a misconceived, frivolous and motivated public interest litigation petition, where no violation of any fundamental right was even pleaded, the High Court has sought to exercise its judicial review jurisdiction over a decision which has been taken by trained experts on public order, individual and national security,” the government in its plea had stated.

The High Court has failed to appreciate that the family members were neither residents of Tripura nor any part of cause of action remotely arising from Tripura existed. Therefore, the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction nor subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, it had said. (ANI)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By agreeing you accept the use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.

Privacy Settings saved!
Privacy Settings

When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. Control your personal Cookie Services here.

These cookies are essential in order to enable you to move around the website and use its features. Without these cookies basic services cannot be provided.

Cookie generated by applications based on the PHP language. This is a general purpose identifier used to maintain user session variables. It is normally a random generated number, how it is used can be specific to the site, but a good example is maintaining a logged-in status for a user between pages.

Used on sites built with Wordpress. Tests whether or not the browser has cookies enabled
  • wordpress_test_cookie

In order to use this website we use the following technically required cookies
  • wordpress_test_cookie
  • wordpress_logged_in_
  • wordpress_sec

Decline all Services
Accept all Services
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x