Bombay High Court dismisses PIL challenging 'Z' security to Mukesh Ambani

Mumbai, Aug 8: Observing that the Centre has the executive powers to analyse threat perception and provide protection to any private person or entity, the Bombay High Court today dismissed a PIL challenging the 'Z'
bombay high court dismisses pil challenging z...
PTI 08 Aug 2013, 04:39 PM IST
Mumbai, Aug 8: Observing that the Centre has the executive powers to analyse threat perception and provide protection to any private person or entity, the Bombay High Court today dismissed a PIL challenging the 'Z' category CRPF security given to Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani.



A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sancklecha today dismissed the public interest litigation filed by two social activists Nitin Deshpande and Vikrant Karnik seeking quashing of the April 21 order of the Union government, which gave CRPF security to Ambani.

"There is nothing in the CRPF Act or rules that take 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, " the court said.

The court relied on a 1955 judgement of the Supreme Court which said the Centre can take executive decisions and need not wait for the Parliament to enact or amend the law.

"The executive powers of the central government are co-existent with the legislative power of the Parliament," the High Court said today, quoting the apex court order.

The bench further said that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) can be deployed for protection and prevention of crime.

"CRPF may be deployed anywhere in India not only for restoration of law and order but also for any other purpose as decided by the Centre," Chief Justice Shah said.

The petitioners' lawyer Ashish Mehta 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.

"If you (petitioner) do not have objection to CISF providing protection to oil refineries then why are you raising objection to protection given to the person who put these oil refineries?" Chief Justice Shah queried.
Related Tags: Bombay High Court
Vote
 
 
 

Write a comment

 

More from business