File photo of Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani
Mumbai:
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Centre's decision to provide Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) security to Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani. The court observed that the Centre has the executive powers to analyse threat perception and provide protection to any private person or entity.
The PIL, filed by activists Nitin Deshpande and Vikrant Karnik, claimed that in recent years, the concept and intention of providing special forces to select personalities was getting polluted and that these people use this privilege as a status symbol. The petitioners said that the CRPF is constituted to tackle emergency situations, and not for day-to-day law and order duties.
"If you have no objection to the state giving security to private oil refineries why do you have a problem with security being provided to the private individual who has set up the refinery?" the court asked the petitioners.
The petitioner's advocate, Ashish Mehta, questioned the Centre's move. "Is Mumbai police not competent to protect one individual?" Mr Mehta asked. He also argued that in 2009, the CISF Act was amended so that they could provide protection to private installations like oil refineries. "Similarly, if CRPF commandos are deployed for protection of private persons, then even the CRPF Act and rules should be amended," Mehta said.
But the court held that there is nothing in the CRPF Act or rules that takes away the executive powers of the central government to provide protection to a private person or entity. It is up to the authority to scrutinise and decide on demand for protection.
When Mr Mehta said that Mumbai is a safe city, Chief Justice Mohit Shah said, "Even after all these terrorist attacks you think Mumbai is safe?"
In April, the government had sanctioned Z-category CRPF security to Mr Ambani after his office informed the Mumbai police about threatening letters purportedly sent by terror group Indian Mujahideen (IM).
The PIL, filed by activists Nitin Deshpande and Vikrant Karnik, claimed that in recent years, the concept and intention of providing special forces to select personalities was getting polluted and that these people use this privilege as a status symbol. The petitioners said that the CRPF is constituted to tackle emergency situations, and not for day-to-day law and order duties.
"If you have no objection to the state giving security to private oil refineries why do you have a problem with security being provided to the private individual who has set up the refinery?" the court asked the petitioners.
The petitioner's advocate, Ashish Mehta, questioned the Centre's move. "Is Mumbai police not competent to protect one individual?" Mr Mehta asked. He also argued that in 2009, the CISF Act was amended so that they could provide protection to private installations like oil refineries. "Similarly, if CRPF commandos are deployed for protection of private persons, then even the CRPF Act and rules should be amended," Mehta said.
But the court held that there is nothing in the CRPF Act or rules that takes away the executive powers of the central government to provide protection to a private person or entity. It is up to the authority to scrutinise and decide on demand for protection.
When Mr Mehta said that Mumbai is a safe city, Chief Justice Mohit Shah said, "Even after all these terrorist attacks you think Mumbai is safe?"
In April, the government had sanctioned Z-category CRPF security to Mr Ambani after his office informed the Mumbai police about threatening letters purportedly sent by terror group Indian Mujahideen (IM).
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
