New Delhi, June 13, 2025

The Supreme Court on Thursday firmly rejected yet another legal challenge to the Z+ security cover granted to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family, cautioning the petitioner against misusing judicial processes to repeatedly target the issue.

 

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan took a strong stance against the conduct of petitioner Bikash Saha, who has previously filed similar pleas before various courts, including the Tripura High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the matter had been conclusively settled, and further litigation on the same grounds amounted to an abuse of legal process.

 

“The petitioner lacks any direct connection to the subject matter. He is not affected in any way and has no legal standing to question a state’s security decision,” the bench remarked, adding that such petitions only drain the Court’s valuable time.

 

The bench reaffirmed that the security cover provided to the Ambani family is based on threat assessments conducted by central agencies, and such assessments fall strictly within the domain of the executive. It emphasized that the Court will not interfere with or substitute the expert judgment of security agencies in such matters.

 

Importantly, the Court reiterated that the Z+ security provided to the Ambani family is being funded by them personally, and not from public funds. “When threat perception is real and the protectee bears the cost, there is no basis for judicial interference,” the bench stated.

 

The Court warned Saha against filing similar petitions in the future and hinted that any further frivolous litigation could invite exemplary costs. The application was dismissed, and the Court ordered that the Z+ cover shall continue without interruption.

 

 

Key Highlights:

• Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging Ambani family’s Z+ security.

• Petitioner warned for filing repeated and baseless litigation.

• Court reaffirms that threat assessments are an executive function.

• Confirms security is privately funded by the Ambanis, not taxpayer money.