Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Bikash Saha on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli
ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 11164-11165/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-
05-2022 in WPCPIL No. 07/2022 21-06-2022 in WPCPIL No. 7/2022
passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agarthala)
UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BIKASH SAHA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 88167/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND IA No. 94012/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION)
Date : 22-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, S G
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.
Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Batra, AOR
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi,Sr. Adv.
Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR
Mr. Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sameer Pandey, Adv.
Maithreya Shetty, Adv.
Mr. Vedant Mishra, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2022.07.29
Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR
19:59:42 IST
Reason:
1
SLP ( C) Nos. 11164-11165/2022
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The present Special Leave Petitions arise out of the impugned orders dated 31.05.2022 and 21.06.2022 passed by the Tripura High Court, at Agartala, in W.P. (C) (PIL) No. 07 of 2022.
2. The subject Writ Petition before the High Court was filed by respondent no. 1- original petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:
a. Admit the instant writ petition filed for interest of public at general;
b. Issue Rule NISI.
c. A Rule be issued out of and under the seal of this Hon’ble Court commanding the Respondents and each one of them to show cause why a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued to quash and/or to set aside and/or to set aside and/or to remove and/or withdraw all the Special Securities provided to Private individuals without any real perception to threat especially Respondent no. 2 to 6. d. A Rule be issued out of and under the seal of this Hon’ble Court commanding the 2 Respondents and each one of them to show cause why a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued, mandating all the Respondents specially Respondents nos. 2 to 6 to reimburse to the cost of State security availed by the said respondents for the entire term/period during which such security was provided, at rates to be determined by the Respondent No. 1 or by this Hon’ble Court along with interest. e. A Rule be issued out of and under the seal of this Hon’ble Court commanding the Respondents and each one of them to show cause why a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued, calling for all the Records in regard to the instant matter.
f. Cost and incidentals of this Petition be borne by the Respondents.
g. Pass any other Order(s) and/or Direction(s) may be passed as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
3. The High Court, vide the two impugned orders dated 31.05.2022 and 21.06.2022, directed the petitioner- Union of India to produce status reports regarding the threat perception with respect to the private 3 respondents no. 2 to 6.
4. Challenging the above directions, the petitioner-Union of India has filed the present Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. On 29.06.2022, this Court stayed the implementation of the impugned orders while issuing notice on the petition.
5. Heard learned Solicitor General for the petitioner-Union of India, and senior counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Learned Solicitor General submitted that the respondent no. 1- original petitioner has no locus in the present matter and that the High Court should not have entertained the present writ petition. He further submitted that the High Court erred in issuing directions to the petitioner- Union of India to produce status reports regarding the threat perception vis-à-vis the respondents no. 2 to 6. He submitted that threat perception in respect of private respondents no. 2 -6 has been thoroughly examined by the Union of India before providing them with security cover.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1- original petitioner submitted that private respondents no. 2 to 6 were not entitled to receive any security cover. He therefore submitted that the fact that they were receiving security protection needs to be inquired into by the Courts.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 to 6 supported the submission of the learned 4 Solicitor General, and stated that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as respondent no. 1 has no locus to agitate the matter. He submitted that private respondents no. 2 to 6 are important members of society who hold key positions in companies which employ thousands of individuals. Pointing to a recent incident in Bombay, which involved a bomb scare and death threat to the private respondents outside their home, learned senior counsel submitted that the highest level of security is necessary for private respondents no. 2 to 6.
9. After perusing the material on record, and carefully considering the submissions of the parties, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned Solicitor General that the respondent no. 1- original petitioner does not have locus standi in the matter. The threat perception of a party is based on the inputs received from the concerned agencies. We cannot adjudicate the same in the present petition filed by the respondent no. 1- original petitioner.
10. Further, it is clear from the record that a similar PIL challenging the grant of Z+ security to the private respondents no. 2 to 6, inter alia, was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay vide order dated 11.12.2019 in Crim. Public Interest Litigation St. No. 42 of 2019, whereby the High Court held as follows:
“8….The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biswanath (supra) is binding throughout the territories of India. We are of the view that 5 the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and other respondents have no option but to ensure that the highest level "Z+" security is provided to these private respondents to protect their life and liberty, irrespective of whether any individual or any authority is convinced about the existence or otherwise of real threat to their life or liberty, particularly when in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biswanath's case (supra), these private respondents are willing to bear the entire cost for said security to protect their lives in view of their own grave threat perceptions.” The above judgment was challenged before this Court in SLP (C) No. 5239 of 2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2020.
11. It is not in dispute that private respondents no. 2 to 6 are the promoters of, and in the management of, some of India’s biggest and most prominent companies. There are no reasons to disbelieve the existence of threat to the lives of the respondents no. 2 to 6, particularly considering the fact of the incident recounted by learned senior counsel for respondents no. 2 to 6. The petitioner- Union of India is already cognizant of this threat and is therefore already providing security. Further, the High Court of Bombay has earlier also recognized the need for Z+ security for the respondents no. 2 to 6, and the Special Leave Petition against the same stands dismissed. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this issue in a PIL filed by a third party who has not proved his locus.
12. In view of the above, we do not see any reason for 6 continuation of the present matter, either before this Court or before the High Court of Tripura. The said writ petition is therefore directed to be closed. The petitioner-Union of India is directed to provide adequate security to the private respondents no. 2 to 6 at their own expense, as per the earlier directions of the High Court of Bombay.
13. With the above observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
14. IA No. 94012/2022 is an application seeking intervention which is dismissed.
15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
7