Supreme Court Warns Litigant For Repeatedly Challenging Mukesh Ambani Family's Security; Orders Z+ Cover To Continue

Case Title: Petitioner v. Union of India & Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta
Date of Order: June 2025
Category: Public Interest Litigation (Security – High Profile)

FACTS OF THE CASE

A petitioner had filed multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the decision of the Government of India and Maharashtra Government to provide Z+ security cover to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family.

The petitioner argued that:

• Such high-level security should be provided only to constitutional authorities or persons under grave threat.
• The cost of maintaining Z+ security from public funds is a misuse of state resources.
• The decision lacked transparency and accountability.

The central and state governments, however, submitted that:

• The threat perception to the Ambani family was assessed by central intelligence agencies, and their inputs clearly recommended continued Z+ security cover.
• Security arrangements were not arbitrary but based on threat inputs and national security concerns, especially due to the Ambani family’s business relevance to India's infrastructure, energy, and economy.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Can the Court interfere with the security cover provided to private individuals based on threat perception?
2. Is the repeated filing of PILs on the same issue without fresh grounds an abuse of the process of law?

OBSERVATIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT

The Bench took a stern view of the matter and made the following key observations:

• “This is not the first time that this issue has come before this Court. In the absence of any new threat assessment or legal violation, filing repeated PILs amounts to harassment and waste of judicial time.”
• The Court emphasized that security decisions are policy matters, primarily guided by expert inputs from intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
• It further remarked:
  “National security cannot be compromised on the whims of individuals. Courts must not substitute expert opinions with judicial presumptions unless there is gross abuse of power.”

FINAL JUDGMENT / ORDER

• The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL with strong words of caution to the petitioner.
• It directed that Z+ security cover for the Ambani family shall continue as per the recommendations of intelligence agencies.
• The Court also warned the petitioner against abusing the PIL mechanism and stated:
  “The system of PILs is not for personal or publicity-driven pursuits. Repeated, baseless petitions may attract monetary penalties in the future.”

HUMAN INTERPRETATION & CONTEXT

This ruling reflects the Supreme Court's growing concern over frivolous or repetitive PILs that aim to interfere in security and administrative matters. The Court drew a clear boundary between judicial oversight and executive discretion, especially when dealing with national security or intelligence-based actions.

The judgment reaffirms that individual rights must be balanced with collective security, and threat assessments must be trusted unless there is evidence of misuse