Published On: Tue, Jun 28th, 2022

Can Tripura HC question Ambanis’ security cover, Centre asks SC | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Union government on Monday moved the Supreme Court questioning the Tripura High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a PIL and scrutinise the need for Z+ security cover given to India’s richest businessman Mukesh Ambani, Y+ security cover to his wife and graded security cover to their children.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta requested a vacation bench headed by Justice Surya Kant for urgent hearing on the Centre’s appeal, saying the HC has ordered a senior official from ministry of home affairs to produce in sealed cover all documents relating to grant of security cover to Ambanis on Tuesday at Agartala. The SC posted the Centre’s appeal for hearing on Tuesday.
The Centre said that Mukesh Ambani was granted Z+ security since 2013 based on the threat report obtained by the security forces, which was evaluated by experts. After a similar exercise Neeta mabani was accorded Y+ security cover in 2016.
“It was also pointed out to the HC that security cover to Ambani and his wife were given on the basis of inputs and assessment report received from intelligence and investigation units and the expense for giving such security was also duly borne out by the Ambanis. Their three children were not granted any central security cover and as such the PIL qua them was frivolous,” the Centre said.
“The HC lost sight of the fact that, to provide a security cover or not to a civilian on the basis of threat perception is a technical matter which requires expertise of trained persons manning law, order and security of the state. Therefore, these decisions taken by experts is not judicially reviewable, much less in a PIL filed in a state where neither of the respondents (Amabanis) reside nor the PIL petitioner could be said to be aggrieved by the security cover by the Central Government to the Ambanis,” it said.
The Centre said a similar challenge by a PIL to the security cover given to Ambanis was dismissed by the Bombay HC in December 2019. The SC on October 27, 2020 had dismissed the appeal against the Bombay HC order and said, “It is for the state to assess and review the threat perception to individuals on a case to case basis”.
The Centre said the HC had no jurisdiction to entertain a frivolous PIL, purportedly filed by a student, when the SC had clearly held that it was for the government to assess and provide security to individuals on a case to case basis.
“The Ambanis admittedly are residents of Mumbai and the place where the decision-making process of whether to provide them with security or not was taken is in New Delhi. Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction of Tripura was completely alien to the subject matter of the PIL. Despite this, the has directed the production of the original file regarding the threat perception and assessment report of the Ambanis , when it had no territorial jurisdiction or any legal basis to make such an order,” the Centre said.

Source link

About the Author


Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>