NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed that highest Z+ security cover should be provided to billionaire businessman Mukesh Ambani and his family across the country and also abroad with their expenses.
With this, the top court "put an end to entire controversy once and for all".
A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, "Highest Z+ Security Cover provided to respondent nos. 2 to 6 (Ambanis) shall be available all across India and the same is to be ensured by the State of Maharashtra and Ministry of Home Affairs. Highest Level Z+ Security Cover, as per the policy of Government of India, be also provided, while respondent nos. 2 to 6 are traveling abroad.
The court also clarified that the entire expenses and cost of providing highest level Z+ security cover to the Ambanis within the territory of India or abroad shall be borne by them.
The court said it issued the directions as the security cover provided to the respondent nos. 2 to 6 has been the subject matter of controversy at different places and in different high courts.
An application filed by one Bikash Saha seeking clarification of the order passed by this court's three-judge bench on July 22, 2022.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the Ambanis, contended that the highest level of Z+ Security cover was provided to them, in view of continuous threat perception assessed by Mumbai Police and Ministry of Home Affairs and Union of India.
The matter before the top court stemmed from the Centres special leave petition challenging Tripura High Courts interim orders directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to produce the original files regarding threat perception in relation to Ambani and his family. The high court directed that an MHA officer should appear before it with the relevant files in sealed cover in June last year.
On July 22 last year, the top court had quashed Tripura High Court proceedings in connection with a PIL, which questioned the security cover provided to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family in Mumbai. However, Saha again filed a miscellaneous application seeking clarification of the July order.
Saha's counsel for the applicant contended that there was a lot of scope of misinterpretation of the said July order, unless it is clarified that its scope was restricted to providing of security cover to exclusively within Maharashtra, which is the place of business and residence of the said respondents.
Rohatgi submitted that his clients were at continued risk of being targeted to financially de-stablize the country and such risk exists not only throughout India as also when the said respondents are traveling abroad.
While disposing of the plea, the top court's bench said, We are of the considered opinion that if there is a security threat, the security cover provided and that too at own expense of the respondents, cannot be restricted to a particular area or place of stay. Looking into the business activities of the respondent nos. 2 to 6 within the country as also outside the country, the very purpose of providing security cover would stand frustrated, if the same is restricted to a particular place or area.
