Judges warn of costs for ‘frivolous’ and ‘vexatious’ petitions as plea to revoke Z-plus protection dismissed
India’s Supreme Court has sharply criticised a litigant for repeatedly challenging the Z-plus security cover granted to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family, warning against what it described as attempts to “arm-twist” the judicial process.
The rebuke came from a vacation bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan, which dismissed a fresh plea from petitioner Bikash Saha, who sought a clarification of the court’s earlier order — issued in February 2023 — rejecting his challenge to the Ambani family’s state-provided protection.
“This is a very serious issue and we are warning you. Don’t think there is a goldmine to be snatched over here and we are here to facilitate your process,” Justice Manmohan told Saha’s counsel during the hearing. “No arm-twisting of the court’s process can be allowed.”
The court noted that Saha had no locus standi — or legal standing — in the matter and labelled his petitions as “frivolous” and “vexatious”. The judges warned that continued filing of such petitions could attract monetary penalties in the future.
Saha had earlier filed multiple pleas urging the court to revoke the Z-plus security provided to the Reliance Industries chairman and his family, a measure granted based on threat assessments conducted by security agencies. The court, however, reiterated that it was not within its jurisdiction to evaluate or revoke such decisions.
“This is something sacrosanct. Whether it’s a political person or a businessman, the state will take whatever precaution it has to take,” the bench said, stressing that the assessment and provision of security were the exclusive purview of the central and state governments, based on intelligence reports and risk analysis.
“Is this our domain? Who are you to decide the threat perception? It is the Government of India that will decide. Tomorrow, if something happens, will you take responsibility? Or will the court take responsibility?” the bench asked.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Ambani family, informed the court that the petitioner had previously filed similar pleas, all of which had been dismissed. The court firmly rejected the latest petition, declining to interfere in the matter and reinforcing the principle that judicial resources must not be wasted on baseless or motivated litigation.
