2013 Supreme(SC) 1117

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI & C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
Abhay Singh
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Special Leave Petition No.(C) Nos.25237 of 2010 & 23984 of 2010
Decided On : 10-12-2013

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
1. When the framers of the Constitution have considered it appropriate to treat those occupyingconstitutional positions as a special category, there is no reason for theCourt to exclude them from the ambit of the term "high dignitaries".
IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Theuse of red lights on the vehicles carrying the holders of constitutionalposts will in no manner compromise with the dignity of other citizens andindividuals or embolden them to think that they are superior to otherpeople, more so, because this distinction would be available to them onlywhile on duty and would be co-terminus with their tenure.
2. The men in uniform; operational agencies which require un-hinderedaccess to the roads for performance of their duty; those engaged inemergency duties such as ambulance services, fire services, emergency maintenance etc, and police vehicles used as escorts or pilots or for law and order duties shall not be entitled to have red lights but lights of other colours, e.g., blue, white, multicoloured etc.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -Sections 109, 110 and 111 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 -Rules 108 ,108-A ,119-Unauthorized use of red lights on motor vehicles and multi-toned horns - Entitlement to use signs and symbols of authority, such as lights of different colours including red lights, insignia, and convoys/escorts by public servants and persons, who hold public offices under the States or the Union of India-Whether is contrary to constitutional ethos and the basic feature of republicanism enshrined in the Constitution-Held use of signs and symbolsof authority such as red lights, etc., is contrary to the constitutionalethos and the basic feature of republicanism, but, theterm "high dignitaries" used in proviso (iii) to Rule 108(1) of the 1989Rules would take within its fold various constitutional functionaries,i.e., holders of the constitutional offices- When the framers of theConstitution have considered it appropriate to treat those occupyingconstitutional positions as a special category, there is no reason for theCourt to exclude them from the ambit of the term "high dignitaries"- Theuse of red lights on the vehicles carrying the holders of constitutionalposts will in no manner compromise with the dignity of other citizens andindividuals or embolden them to think that they are superior to otherpeople, more so, because this distinction would be available to them onlywhile on duty and would be co-terminus with their tenure-Directions issued (Paras 28, 29)

        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -Sections 109, 110 and 111 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 -Rules 108 ,108-A ,119-Unauthorizeduse of multi-toned horns on motor vehicles -Whether is contrary to constitutional ethos and the basic feature of republicanism enshrined in the Constitution-Since the prohibition contained inRule 119(2) on the use of multi-toned horns giving a succession ofdifferent notes or with any other sound producing device giving an undulyharsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise is absolute with certain exceptionsspecified in sub-rule (3), the only thing required to be done by theCentral and the State Governments is to implement the prohibition in its letter and spirit- Their failure to do so for last almost 24 years is inexplicable- The contemptuous disregard to the prohibition by people inpower, holders of public offices, civil servants and even ordinary citizensis again reflective of 'Raj Mentality' and is antithesis of the concept of a Republic-Held only possible remedy to curb the menace ofuse of multi-toned horns is to impose exemplary fine on the violators andensure its rigorous enforcement by the concerned authorities and agencies-. No motor vehicles except those specified in Rule 119(3) of the 1989 Rules or similar provisions contained in the rules framed by the State Governments or the Administration of Union Territories shall be fitted with multi-toned horns giving a succession of different notes or with any other sound producing device giving an unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise-Directions issued (Paras 27)

       Facts of the Case :

        One of the several questions of public and constitutional importancein the special leave petitions filed againstorder passed by HighCourt quashing the withdrawal of "Z GradeSecurity" provided to Respondent No.6-Pramod Tiwari, , is whether the Constitution contemplatescategorization of citizens into two groups and whether the entitlement touse signs and symbols of authority, such as lights of different coloursincluding red lights, insignia, and convoys/escorts by public servants andpersons, who hold public offices under the States or the Union of India, iscontrary to constitutional ethos and the basic feature of republicanismenshrined in the Constitution.

       Findings of the Court :

        A.The Supreme CourtHeld that use of signs and symbols of authority such as red lights, etc., is contrary to the constitutional ethos and the basic feature of republicanism, but, the term "high dignitaries" used in proviso (iii) to Rule 108(1) of the 1989 Rules would take within its fold various constitutional functionaries, i.e., holders of the constitutional offices. When the framers of the Constitution have considered it appropriate to treat those occupying constitutional positions as a special category, there is no reason for the Court to exclude them from the ambit of the term "high dignitaries". The use of red lights on the vehicles carrying the holders of constitutional posts will in no manner compromise with the dignity of other citizens and individuals or embolden them to think that they are superior to other people, more so, because this distinction would be available to them only while on duty and would be co-terminus with their tenure. However, the Governments of most of the States and Administration of Union Territories have framed rules and issued notifications allowing use of red lights on the vehicles carrying large number of persons other than "highdignitaries". They have also used the power of issuing notifications to enlarge the list of the persons entitled to use red lights with or without flashers whether on duty or otherwise. Most of these notifications are far beyond the scope of clause 'c' of Notifications dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2005 issued by the Central Government.

        B. There is Abysmal failure on the part of the concerned authorities and agencies of various State Governments and the Administration of the Union Territories to check misuse of the vehicles with red lights on their top. So much so that a large number of persons are using red lights on their vehicles for committing crimes in different parts of the country and they do so with impunity because the police officials are mostly scared of checking vehicles with red lights, what to say of imposing fine or penalty.The State Governments and Administration of Union Territories cannot enlarge the scope of the term "high dignitaries" beyond what is prescribed in clauses 'c' and 'd' of Notifications dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2005 issued by the Central Government. Therefore, they shall amend the relevant rules and notifications to bring them in tune with the 1989 Rules and notifications dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2002 issued by the Central Government.

        C. The only possible remedy to curb the menace of use of multi-toned horns is to impose exemplary fine on the violators and ensure its rigorous enforcement by the concerned authorities and agencies. No motor vehicles except those specified in Rule 119(3) of the 1989 Rules or similar provisions contained in the rules framed by the State Governments or the Administration of Union Territories shall be fitted with multi-toned horns giving a succession of different notes or with any other sound producing device giving an unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise.

       Result : Ordered Accordingly