Supreme Court Denies Request to Revoke Mukesh Ambani’s Z+ Security, Issues Stern Warning to Petitioner over Future Filings

On 14^th June, 2025, the Supreme Court came down hard on a petitioner who persistently questioned the Z+ security provided to Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani and his family, cautioning him that any further such actions could lead to severe financial penalties.

A vacation bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan dismissed the plea filed by Bikash Saha, who had asked for the withdrawal of the top-tier security cover for the Ambani family. The Court emphasized that Saha had no legal standing to file the petition and criticized his repeated interference in the matter.

“The applicant is not entitled to challenge the security granted after thorough threat assessment by competent authorities,” the bench stated, issuing a stern warning that future petitions of this nature could attract heavy monetary sanctions.

Upholding the continuation of the Z+ security for Mukesh Ambani, his wife Nita, and their children — Akash, Isha, and Anant — the judges deemed Saha’s arguments baseless and beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny.

During the proceedings, the bench expressed incredulity at the notion that the judiciary should evaluate security classifications. “Are we now expected to determine who should receive state security? That’s certainly not our mandate,” the Court noted, questioning the relevance of such litigation within the judiciary’s purview.

Addressing the petitioner directly, the bench asked rhetorically, “What qualifies you to assess national security threats? Isn’t that the prerogative of the government? If something untoward were to happen, would you or the Court take accountability?”

The judges issued a stern caution against trivializing such matters. “This isn’t a jackpot for opportunists. The Court will not serve as a platform for personal agendas,” they said firmly.

Representing the Ambani family, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi supported the government's decision, pointing out that the security classification was made based on professional intelligence reports. He argued that Saha had no connection to the issue and therefore no right to interfere.

Rohatgi also mentioned that Saha had previously submitted a similar public interest litigation in Tripura challenging the same security detail. That case was moved to the Supreme Court, which had already ruled against him and nullified the Tripura High Court’s decision while making strong remarks about his unwarranted involvement.