Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Bikash Saha on 13 June, 2025
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS.1080-1081 OF 2025
[@ I.A.No.144360/2025 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTION]
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 11164-11165/2022
UNION OF INDIA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
BIKASH SAHA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
IN THE MATTER OF:
BIKASH SAHA APPLICANT(S)
O R D E R
1. These Miscellaneous Applications have been preferred by the
applicant-Bikash Saha, who was respondent no.1 in SLP (C)
Nos.11164-11165/2022, seeking issuance of necessary directions in
the following manner:
(i) The issue brought before this Court in these Applications
enumerates from the order passed by this Court on 22.07.2022 in SLP
(C) Nos.11164-65/2022, wherein this Court observed thus:
“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 Grim.
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 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
Signature Not Verified
or otherwise of real threat to their life or
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN
Date: 2025.06.16
liberty, particularly when in terms of the ratio
16:19:53 IST
Reason: 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 view1
of their own grave threat perceptions.”
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……………….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.”
(ii) Thereafter, the applicant preferred Miscellaneous Application
Nos. 309-10/2023 seeking similar relief as sought in the present
Applications and this Court vide order dated 27.02.2023 refused to
entertain the said Miscellaneous Applications. At the same time,
reiterating the previous order, this Court issued the following
directions on 27.02.2023:
“9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the considered opinion that if there is a security
threat, the security cover provided and that too at own
expense of the respondents, cannot be restricted to a
particular area or place of stay. Looking into the
business activities of the respondent nos. 2 to 6 within
the country as also outside the country, the very purpose
of providing security cover would stand frustrated, if
the same is restricted to a particular place or area.
10. Furthermore, when it was conclusively adjudicated
vide order dated 22.07.2022 that the applicant
(respondent no. 1 herein) has no locus in the matter, the
present MA at his behest is not liable to be entertained.
11. We find that the Security Cover provided to the
respondent nos. 2 to 6 has been the subject matter of
controversy at different places and in different High
Courts. To put an end to entire controversy once and for
all, we issue following directions: –
2
(i) Highest Z+ Security Cover provided to
respondent nos. 2to 6 shall be available all across
India and the same is to be ensured by the State of
Maharashtra and Ministry of Home Affairs.
(ii) Highest Level Z+ Security Cover, as per the
policy of Government of India, be also provided,
while respondent nos. 2 to 6 are traveling abroad
and the same shall be ensured by the Ministry of
Home Affairs.
(iii) The entire expenses and cost of providing
Highest level Z+ Security Cover to respondent nos.
2 to 6 within the territory of India or abroad
shall be borne by them.”
2. It is surprising that despite this Court having observed in
the order dated 22.07.2022 that the original petitioner, i.e., the
present applicant does not have locus standi in the matter and that
the threat perception of a party is based on the inputs received
from the concerned agencies. The Court cannot adjudicate the same
in the present petition filed by the writ petitioner therein who is
the applicant herein. Yet the writ petitioner has ventured to
prefer a similar prayer time and again, earlier by filing the
Miscellaneous Application No. 309-10/2023 and, again, in the
present Miscellaneous Applications.
3. It is also significant to note that in the order dated
22.07.2022 in SLP (C) Nos.11164-65/2022, the Union of India
submitted that the threat perception in regard to private
respondent nos. 2 to 6 has been thoroughly examined by the Union of
India before providing them with Z+ security cover. When the matter
stands thus, these Miscellaneous Applications are again preferred
which are not only frivolous but also vexatious. We again reiterate
that the applicant does not have locus standi to seek a prayer for
withdrawing the Z+ security cover granted to private respondent
3
nos. 2 to 6 by the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra
after thoroughly examining the threat perception in respect of the
said private respondents. The applicant has neither any wherewithal
nor has produced any material before us that there is any
significant change in respect of the security threat of the private
respondent nos. 2 to 6. As such, there is no change in threat
perception of the private respondents.
4. In such a view of the matter, we refuse to entertain the
present Miscellaneous Applications by observing that the Z+
security cover offered to the private respondents shall continue to
be given by the concerned agencies in terms of the orders passed by
this Court in SLP (C) Nos.11164-65/2022 and Miscellaneous
Application Nos.309-10 of 2023. I.A.No.144360/2025 is, accordingly,
dismissed.
5. We warn the applicant not to indulge in any similar exercise
in future, failing which this Court shall consider imposing
exemplary cost upon the applicant.
6. The Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of.
………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
……………………..J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI
13th June, 2025
4
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No. 1080-1081/2025 in SLP(C) No. 11164-
11165/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-07-2022
in SLP(C) No. 11165/2022 dated 22-07-2022 in SLP(C) No. 11164/2022
passed by the Supreme Court of India]
UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BIKASH SAHA & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 144360/2025 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
Date : 13-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
[PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH]
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Raghav Sabarwal, Adv.
Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashish Batra, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of, in terms of
the signed order.
2. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KANCHAN CHOUHAN) (AKSHAY KUMAR BHORIA)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed Order is placed on the file.]
5