It needs to be mentioned here, based on the threat report obtained by the security forces, ‘Z ’ category security was given to Mukesh Ambani in 2013 and ‘Y ' category CRPF cover was given to Neeta Ambani in 2016. “But their three children do not have any such cover from the central government," the Centre had informed the Supreme Court earlier.
However, based on the PIL by an activist named Bikash Saha the Tripura High Court sought the original file on threat perception and assessment.
Following this, the Centre moved to the Supreme Court stating the petitioner is "just a meddlesome interloper" and the petition is "misconceived, frivolous and motivated".
“Thus, the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. It is further submitted that the Respondents 2-6 (Mukesh Ambani, his wife, and children), admittedly are residents of Mumbai, and the place where the decision-making process of whether to provide them with security or not was taken, inter-alia, is in New Delhi. Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction of the state of Tripura was completely alien to the subject matter of petition", it has said.
The government has said that despite the same the High Court has directed the production of the original file regarding the threat perception and assessment report of the said Respondents for access when it had no territorial jurisdiction or any legal basis to make such an order.
“Therefore, the interim orders passed by the High Court are completely without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus liable to be set aside", it has said.
