SC to hear Centre's plea challenging proceedings before Tripura HC against security cover to Ambani family tomorrow
Jun 27, 2022
New Delhi [India], June 27 : The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on Tuesday the Centre's plea challenging proceedings before the Tripura High Court against Z+ security cover given to Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani and his family in Mumbai.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant that the High Court has sought details of threat perception based on which security cover was provided to the Ambanis in Mumbai.
The Central Government filed the appeal against the High Court's order asking the government to place the original file maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding the threat perception and assessment report of the Ambani family prepared by it.
The Solicitor General told the bench that the security provided to a family in Mumbai has nothing to do with the Tripura government and that High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the PIL.
He said High Court has summoned Union Home ministry officials to be present before it on Tuesday with documents relating to threat perception.
The bench while hearing the mentioning, agreed to list the matter on Tuesday.
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 stated.
The High Court has failed to appreciate that the family members were neither residents of Tripura nor any part of the cause of action remotely arising from Tripura existed, said the plea. Therefore, the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction nor subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, it added.
