The Supreme Court on Friday pulled out a petitioner, who again questioned the extended Z-Plus security for Reliance Industries President Mukesh Ambani and his family, saying that the court earlier despite clarifying that the petitioner lacked Locos Standy in the case and said that whatever estimates are necessary, it is a politician or a manager.
A bench of Justices PK Mishra and Manmohan wondered how the court can decide who should be protected and the applicant asked Bikash Saha, would he take responsibility if something unpleasant is in future.
Justice Manmohan asked, “Is the Supreme Court to decide who to be given protection? This is something new.
“Who are you to decide the perception of danger? The Government of India will decide that, no, tomorrow, if some accidents happen, will you take responsibility? Or the court will take responsibility for it?” Justice Manmohan said.
Saying that there could be no hand in the court process, the judge warned the applicant, “Do not do this. It is very serious and we are warning you. Don’t think that there is a gold silence to snatch here … We are not here to facilitate your process. It is a political person or a businessman who is a political person.
Rejecting Saha’s plea, the court said in its order that it had passed the order in the case on 22 July 2022. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application, which was currently demanded for equal relief, but was rejected and the July 22 order was repeated.
“It is surprising that the court has seen in its first order that the current applicant does not have a locos standy in this case and the danger perception is based on the input received by the agencies concerned, and this court cannot entertain in the current petition filed by the petitioner, which is the applicant here, yet the petitioner has undertake to file a uniform piping.”
The story continues below this advertisement
SC said that while hearing the argument for the first time, the Center “presented the perception of that danger … was thoroughly investigated … before providing them a security cover. When the matter stands like this, this diverse application is re -preferred, which is not only trivial, but also a hero.”
Saying that the petitioner had no local standy to search for the return of safety by the Center and Maharashtra, the court said that Saha “made no material that made any material that there was a significant change in security perception”.
Refusing to entertain the petition, the court directed that the security given to Ambani and the family would continue. This warned the petitioner that “the court would consider implementing exemplary costs if failed to indulge in similar practice in future.”
,
