# 17 S.C.R. 80 ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2013] 17 S.C.R. 80
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-12-10
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, C. Nagappan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/17-s-c-r-80-abhay-singh-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-28823
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 109, 110 and 111 - Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1989 - Rules 108, 108A and 119 - Use of
C multi-toned horns and lights of red, blue, white and multi
colour - On the motor vehicles - Permissibility - Held: To
curb the menace of use of mu/ti-toned horns in violation of
rule 119 by the people in power, holders of public offices, civil
servants and ordinary citizens, exemplary fine needs to be
D imposed on the violators, and its rigorous enforcement needs ·
to be ensured - The use of signs and symbols of authority
E
F
· such as red lights etc. is contrary to the constitutional ethos
and basic feature of republicanism - But 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" - Hence, the term "high
dignitaries" used in proviso (iii) to Rufe 108(1) would take
within its fold various constitutional functionaries - The use
of red lights on the vehicles carrying the holders of
constitutional posts will not compromise with the dignity of
other citizens and individuals because this distinction would
be available to them only while on duty and would be coterminus with their tenure - Various States and administration
of Union Territories have failed to check the misuse of red
G lights on the vehicles - Notifications issued by them allowing
the use of red lights is also far beyond the scope of clause
'C' of Notifications dated 11-1-2002 and 28-7-2005 issued by
the Central Government - States and Union Territories
H
80
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
81
directed not to enlarge the scope of the term "high dignitaries"
A
beyond what is prescribed in clauses 'c' and 'd' of Notifications
dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2005 issued by the Central
Government - The men in uniform; operational agencies
which require un-hindered access to the roads for
performance of their duty; those engaged in emergency duties
B
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. - No motor vehicles except those specified c
in Rule 119(3) shall be fitted with multi-toned horns - The
police officers and other authorities entrusted with the task of
enforcing the provisions of the 1988 Act and the Rules framed
thereunder directed to discharge their duties without any fear
or favour and to impose appropriate penalty on those who
D
violate the prohibition contained in Rule 108(1) and Rule 119
and similar rules framed by the State Governments and the
Administration of Union Territories.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,994 of 63,787. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39994 for what follows._

A
B
[2013) 17 S.C.R. 80
ABHAY SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Special Leave Petition No.(C) No.25237 /2010)
DECEMBER 10, 2013
[G.S. SINGHVI AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 109, 110 and 111 - Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1989 - Rules 108, 108A and 119 - Use of
C multi-toned horns and lights of red, blue, white and multi
colour - On the motor vehicles - Permissibility - Held: To
curb the menace of use of mu/ti-toned horns in violation of
rule 119 by the people in power, holders of public offices, civil
servants and ordinary citizens, exemplary fine needs to be
D imposed on the violators, and its rigorous enforcement needs ·
to be ensured - The use of signs and symbols of authority
E
F
· such as red lights etc. is contrary to the constitutional ethos
and basic feature of republicanism - But 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" - Hence, the term "high
dignitaries" used in proviso (iii) to Rufe 108(1) would take
within its fold various constitutional functionaries - The use
of red lights on the vehicles carrying the holders of
constitutional posts will not compromise with the dignity of
other citizens and individuals because this distinction would
be available to them only while on duty and would be coterminus with their tenure - Various States and administration
of Union Territories have failed to check the misuse of red
G lights on the vehicles - Notifications issued by them allowing
the use of red lights is also far beyond the scope of clause
'C' of Notifications dated 11-1-2002 and 28-7-2005 issued by
the Central Government - States and Union Territories
H
80
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
81
directed not to enlarge the scope of the term "high dignitaries"
A
beyond what is prescribed in clauses 'c' and 'd' of Notifications
dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2005 issued by the Central
Government - The men in uniform; operational agencies
which require un-hindered access to the roads for
performance of their duty; those engaged in emergency duties
B
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. - No motor vehicles except those specified c
in Rule 119(3) shall be fitted with multi-toned horns - The
police officers and other authorities entrusted with the task of
enforcing the provisions of the 1988 Act and the Rules framed
thereunder directed to discharge their duties without any fear
or favour and to impose appropriate penalty on those who
D
violate the prohibition contained in Rule 108(1) and Rule 119
and similar rules framed by the State Governments and the
Administration of Union Territories.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition(Civil) No. 25237 of 2010.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2009 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 15440 of
1998.
Mohan Parasaran, SG, Siddharth Luthra, ASG, Harish N.
F
Salve, Sushil Kumar Jain, Rakesh Dwivedi, A. Mariarputham,
Gaurav Bhatia, Reena Singh,.Ajay Bansal, Jasbir Singh Malik,
Shankar Chillarge, Manjit Singh, AAGs, Prashant Bhushan,
Farrukh Rasheed, B.K. Prasad, Alok Prasanna, A.K. Kaul, G.S.
Bedi, Supriya Juneja, D.S. Mahra, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,
G
Abhinav Kr. Malik, Kuldip Singh, Gaurav Yadav, Asha Gopalan
Nair, Vinay Kuhar, Tarjit Singh, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Prateek
Dwivedi, Aishverya Shandilya, Aruna Mathur, Shibashish Misra,
Suvinay Dash, K. Enatoli Serna, Amit Kr. Singh, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Subhro Sanyal, Gopal Pn:isad, Jay Gaurav,
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 17 S.C.R.
A Balasubramanian, K.V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, Suryanaryana
Singh, Pragati Neekhra, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu
Ramasubramanian, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, B. Balaji,
Sapam Biswajit Meith, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, P.V.
Yogeswaran, Gopal Singh, V.N. Raghuμathy, Balaji, Srinivasan,
B Sunil Fernandes, Hemantika Wahi, B.V. Balaram Das, Mishra
Saurabh, Sunil Kumar jain, Sachin Sharma, Anuradha Mutatkar,
Anil Shrivasatav, Rituraj Biswas, Soummitra G. Chaudhuri, Anip
Sachthey, Shagun Matta, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Dharmendra
Kumar Sinha, T. Mahipal, Shreekant N. Terdal, C.D. Singh for
c the Appearing Parties.
The Order of the Court wad delivered by
ORDER
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. One of the several questions of public
D and constitutional importance raised by Shri Harish Salve,
learned senior counsel, who initially appeared on behalf of the··
petitioner in the special leave petitions filed against order dated
21.8.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 15440of1998 quashing the withdrawal
E of "Z Grade Security" provided to Respondent No.6-Pramod
Tiwari, but later on assumed the role of an Amicus, is whether
the Constitution contemplates categorization of citizens into two
groups and whether the entitlement to use signs and symbols
of authority, such as lights of different colours including red lights,
F insignia, and convoys/escorts by public servants and persons,
who hold public offices under the States or the Union of India,
is contrary to constitutional ethos and the basic feature of
republicanism enshrined in the Constitution.
Notice of the special leave petitions was issued on
G 25.8.2010. After an adjournment, the Court passed detailed
H
order dated 14.10.2011, which reads as under:
"Although, the prayer made in this petition filed under
Article 136 of the Constitution is for setting aside the order
passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
83
[G.S. SINGHVI, J]
directing consideration of the case of respondent No. 6 for
A
providing 'Z' category security to him and his family
members, at the hearing Shri Harish N. Salve, Learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that dehors the
facts of the case, the Court should examine important
issues affecting an important facet of the Constitutional
B
democracy i.e. whether the country should have two.
categories of citizens, of which one enjoys all sorts of
privileges including unwanted security at public expense
and is also allowed to use different kinds of symbols which
represented the authority of the State in pre-independence c
era and the fundamental rights to life and liberty of other
category are not protected. Shri Salve suggested that the
following questions may be considered by the Court:
1.
2.
Whether the permission to use signs and symbril·
of authority, such as beacons, insignia, :..,1:'.
convoys/escorts by public servants or any person
who holds any office under the States or the Union
of India, or any other person, is contrary to Article
18 and 38 and the basic feature of republicanism
enshrined in the Constitution?
Whether the State was and is under an affirmative
obligation to ensure that the vision of the founding
fathers to change the perception of the State and
its functionaries from rulers to public servants who
are to serve rather than:govern the people, was
implemented .in letter and spirit?
E
F
3.
Whether by virtue of Article 21 read with Article 14,
State is under an obligation to afford the same
degree of protection to the safety and security of
G
every person irrespective of any office held by such
person or status of such person or any other factor?
4.
Whether the grant of protection [by way of escorts
or otherwise], particularly at the expense of the
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 17 S.C.R.
State, on the basis of an office held by a person or
any other factor [other than a perceived need to
grant heightened protection on account of
aggravated threat to the life of any person on
account of his lawful occupation, assessed on an
objective basis] is illegal, ultra vires and
unconstitutional?
5.
Whether the State is under an obligation to ensure
that any heightened protection granted to any
person, or any special security arrangements made
for any person, holding public office, is done in a
manner that does not violate the principle of
republicanism and the provisions or Art. 18 and 21
of the Constitution?
Shri Pallav Shishodia, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No.6 says
that the questions proposed by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner are of
great public importance and he will have no
objection if same are considered by the
Court. He also suggested that the Court may
suo motu order impleadment of all the States
and Union Territories as parties so that they
may also make appropriate submissions.
We have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel and are prima facie satisfied
first four of the five questions framed by Shri
Salve would require detailed examination.
Let notice be issued to all the States and
Union Territories through their Secretaries,
Home Department so as to enable them to
file their written response in the context of
question No. 1 to 4 framed by learned senior
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
85
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
counsel appearing for the petitioner. Notice
A
is returnable in six weeks.
Keeping in view the importance of the
questions framed hereinabove, we request
the learned Solicitor General to assist the
Co1,1rt."
On 17 .1.2013, the Court considered the prayer made in
the application filed on behalf of the SLP petitioner and passed
the following order:
"Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel representing
the petitioner in S.L.P.(C) No.25237 of 2010 place before
B
c
the Court an application for direction in which it has bee •
prayed that a direction may be issued to all the States and
Union Territories to furnish information under the following
0
headings:
(a) The Rules, Orders or Guidelines, if any, in the State
which prescribe the policy for permitting Red Lights on
vehicles to various persons in the state.
(b) The Rules, Orders or Guidelines, if any, in the state
which prescribe the policy of the state for permitting
security personnel to individuals.
E
(c) The Names and the designation of the persons to whom
security personnel have been provided and the number of
F
security persons provided to them.
(d) Total cost borne by the state for providing security in
terms as aforesaid.
G
(e) Total number of security personnel in the state and the
total number of such personnel who are engaged in (i)
Maintaining Law and Order, (ii) Crime Prevention and
investigation and (iii) Traffic Management.
H
A
B
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 17 S.C.R.
Learned counsel for the States and Union Territories must
ensure that affidavits of the responsible officers of the
Home Department of their respective Slates and Union
Territories are filed within three weeks from today. Any
lapse in this regard will be viewed seriously.
For further consideration, list the cases on 07.02.2013."
On the next effective date of hearing, i.e., 14.2.2013, the
Court took into consideration two notes made available by the
learned Amicus and passed detailed order, the relevant
C portions of which are reproduced below:
D
E
F
G
"Before considering the issues raised in the 2nd note
made available by Shri Salve, we deem it proper to issue
the following directions:
1. All the State Governments and the Administration of
Union Territories shall furnish the details of the total
expenses incurred in providing security to public
functionaries and private individuals other than holders of
the constitutional office like the President, the VicePresident, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok
Sabha, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Chief
Justice of India and their counter parts in the States and
Union Territories.
2. Total number of persons other than the dignitaries, to
whom reference has been made in the preceding
paragraph, to whom security has been provided at the
State expense giving the details of number of persons of
various cadres deputed for providing security to the
various persons.
3. The details of the security provided to the children and
other family members I relatives of the public functionaries
within or outside the State/Union Territory.
H
4. The details of the persons who are facing criminal
Af?HAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH
87
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
charges, charges of violating any provisions of law and to
A
whom security has been provided at State expense.
5." The details of the private individuals to whom the
security has been provided at the cost of public exchequer,
whether in lieu of payment made by them or otherwise.
6. Each State Government/Union Territory shall security
provided to public functionaries and provide details of the
review undertaken of the private individuals.
B
7. All the States and Union Territories shall file copies of c
the Rules/Orders which authorises the police and other
functionaries to close roads for movement of public
functionaries or their visits.
8. The notifications issued by the Central Government,
State Governments and the Union Territories authorising
D
use of Sirens other than by the man in uniform and those
engaged and providing medical facilities to the patients
and victims of accidents."
When the case was taken up for hearing on 3.4.2013, Shri
Harish N. Salve made submissions with reference to the
following three questions:
"1. Whether the use of beacons red-light and sirens by
persons other than high constitutional functionaries is lawful
and constitutional?
2. Whether the provision of security to persons other than
the constitutional functionaries without corresponding
increase in sanctioned strength and without a specific
assessment of threat is lawful and constitutional?
3. Whether the closure of roads for facilitating movement
of VIPs is lawful and constitutional?"
Further arguments were heard on 4.4.2013 and certain
E
F
G
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 17 S.C.R.
A
directions were issued in the light of the provisions of the Motor
Vahicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act'), the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the 1989 Rules')and the Rules
framed by the State Governments, the relevant portions of which
are extracted hereunder:
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
''The Motor Vehicles Act was enacted in 1988 and the
Rules were framed by the Central Government and various
State Governments in 1989. The legislative bodies and the
authorities have not thought it proper to make appropriate
amendments to bring the provisions of the Act and the
Rules in conformity with the aspirations of the people of a
republic and even now a small section of the society
considers itself to be as a special category as compared
to other citizens. This appears to be the primary reason
why the Governments after Governments have issued
notifications under Section 6 of the 1988 Act and the rules
framed thereunder authorizing the use of beacons on
government vehicles (some persons use such beacons
even on private vehicles). The time has come when the use
of beacons on the vehrcles, government or nongovernment is drastically restricted so that the people's
right to freedom of movement is not hindered in any
manner whatsoever.
Learned counsel representing some of the State
Governments have not controverted the assertion made by
Shri Salve that not only the higt1 dignitaries on duty but large
number of other elected and non-elected persons are
allowed to use beacons and sirens/hooters causing
serious invoncenience to the general public using the roads
and even otherwise.
Shri Salve also brought to our notice the fact that the
vehicles of the State neighbouring NCT of Delhi use
beacons with flashers and sirens even though they are not
permitted to do so in the NCT of Delhi.
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
89
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
With a view to ensure that menace of beacons on vehicles
and use of sirens is stopped except in the cases of heads
of the constitutional institutions, we deem it proper to give
an opportunity to the Central Government as also the
Governments of all the States and the Administration of the
Union Territories to amend the relevant provisions of the
Rules and the notifications issJ!ed under Rule 108 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, '1989 and corresponding
provisions in the State Rules as also Rule 119 for
restricting the use of beacons by the heads of political
executive, legislature and judiciary only and total
prohibition on the use of siren except by police, ambulance,
fire fighters, Army and those permitted in Rule 119(3) of
the 1989 Rules and the corresponding Rules framed by
the State Governments.
We also deem it proper to indicate that it will be prudent
for the Central Government and the State Governments as
well as the administration of the Union Territories to
substantially increase the fine for violation of the provisions
of the 1988 Act and in particular those relating to the
matters indicated hereinabove."
Shri Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General, Shri
Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General
representing the Union of India and Delhi Administration
respectively, and Shri Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional
Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh agreed that unauthorized use
of red lights on motor vehicles and multi-toned horns deserves
to be.dealt with sternly and exemplary fine should be imposed
on the violators.
After considering their statement, the Court adjourned the
case to enable them to get in touch with the concerned
authorities to find out a possible administrative and legislative
solution to this menace. However, neither the Central
Government nor the State Governments took any step for
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 17 S.C.R.
A
checking the menace of unauthorized use of red lights and
multi-toned horns.
On the next date of hearing, i.e., 19.8.2013, the Court
heard the arguments on the interpretation of Rules 1 OB and
8
119 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and notification
dated 11.1.2002 issued by the Central Government.
Thereafter, the learned Solicitor General made available a short
note on behalf of the Union of India (Ministry of Road, Transport
and Highways) and the learned Amicus handed over note
containing the gist of his submissions. Two further notes were
C
made available on 4.10.2013 by Shri Sushi! Kumar Jain,
Senior Advocate representing the SLP petitioner.
Shri Harish Salve, learned Amicus pointed out that Rule
108(1) imposes total prohibition against showing a red light
o to the front or light other than red to rear and that exemption
envisaged by proviso (iii) to Rule 108(1) is limited to a vehicle
carrying "high dignitaries" as specified by the Central
Government or the State Governments, from time to time. Shri
Salve emphasized that even though the term "high dignitaries"
E
F
has not been defined in the 1988 Act and the 1989 Rules,
keeping in view the Preamble of the Constitution which talks
of equality of status and the dignity of individual, that term must
be given a restricted interpretation to include only Heads of
three wings of the Republic, i.e., the President, the VicePresident, the Governors of the States, the Prime Minister, the
Chief Ministers, Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament,
Speakers of Legislative Assemblies and Chairmen of
Legislative Councils and the Chief Justice of India and the
Chief Justices of the High Courts. He submitted that while the
Central Government has restricted the use of red light with or
G without flasher on the top front of a vehicle carrying high
dignitaries who have been specified in Notification dated
11.1.2002, as amended by Notification dated 28.7.2005, and
that too while on duty, the State Governments have exercised
the rule making power under Section 11 O and allowed the use
H of red lights with or without flasher by a very large number of
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
91
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
B
public representatives at various levels as also the public
A
servants and made a mockery of the object of proviso (iii) to
Rule 108(1). The learned Amicus submitted that the use of red
light with or without flasher on the top of the government
vehicles allotted to a large body of public representatives and
civil servants has become a status symbol and those using
such vehicles treat themselves as a class different than ordinary
citizens. According to Shri Salve, the widespread use of red
lights on government vehicles in the country is reflective of the
mentality of those who served British Government in India and
treated the natives as slaves. He drew our attention to the rules c
framed by various State Governments and the notifications
issued permitting use of red lights with or without flasher on
the top of the vehicles to show that the idea of permitting red
light on the vehicle carrying "high dignitaries" has been reduced
to a farce.
Shri Salve also referred to Rule 119 of the 1989 Rules
and argued that despite total prohibition on use of multi-toned
horns, vehicles used by public servants of different categories
are indulging in rampant violation of the prohibition. Shri Salve
pointed out that in terms of Rule 119(3), only in the vehicles
used as ambulances or for fire fighting or salvage purposes
or vehicles used by police officers or operators of construction
equipment vehicles or officers of the Motor Vehicles
Department in the course of their duty or on construction
equipment vehicles, the registering authority can permit use of
multi-toned horns, but such horns are being used by public
representatives from the lowest to the highest level and civil
servants of every possible category and those entrusted with
the task of enforcing these provisions contemptuously overlook
the violations.
Shri Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General argued
that in the absence Of Challenge to the Vires and
constitutionality of Rule 108, this Court cannot impose
restriction on the power of the Central Government to specify
D
E
F
G
H
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 17 S.C.R.
A
the vehicles carrying "high dignitaries" which may be permitted
to use red light with or without flasher. He further argued that
there is no valid reason to give a restricted meaning to the term
"high dignitaries" and it should be left to the Central and the
State Governments to specify the "high dignitaries". According
B
to the learned Solicitor General, the vehicles carrying certain
dignitaries and category of officials constitute a class by
themselves and no illegality has been committed by the State
Governments by allowing use of red lights on the vehicles
carrying a large number of public representatives and public
c servants. He submitted that fixing of red lights on the vehicles
used by civil servants is essential for effective discharge of their
duties. Learned Solicitor General submitted that such use of
red lights facilitates the movement of public representatives and
civil servants. He then submitted that clause (e) of notification
0
dated 11.1.2002 contains conditions for exercise of power by
the State Government to grant exemption and argued that in
some cases, the State Government might have violated the
conditions specified in notification dated 11.1.2002, but that
cannot be a ground for restricting the use of red lights on the
vehicles used by government officers.
E
Shri Parasaran submitted that (1) men in uniform; (2)
operational agencies which require un-hindered access to the
road for performance of their duty; (3) those engaged in
emergency duties such as ambulance services, fire services,
F
emergency maintenance etc; and (4) officials in Districts, etc.,
such as Divisional Commissioner, OM, ADM, SOM, Executive
Magistrates or where their functional requirements necessitate
smooth, fast and easy passage in certain circumstances, are
not entitled to use red light on their vehicles but lights of other
G colours, e.g., blue. white, multicoloured etc.
H
On the issue of use of multi-toned horns, the learned
Solicitor General submitted that Rule 119(2) imposes total
prohibition on the fittings of such horns on any vehicle subject
to the exceptions specified in clause (3) thereof and the Union
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
93
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of India is fully committed to ensure total compliance of the
A
"
prohibition.
Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General
supported the argument of learned Solicitor General and
submitted that the term "high dignitaries" should be so
B
interpreted as to include all those who are holding constitutional
offices, i.e., the President, the Vice-President, the Prime
Minister, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India,
the Judges of the Supreme Court, Chairman of the Union Public
Service Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the c
Chief Election Commissioner and their counterparts in the
States. Shri Luthra also emphasized that use of the lights of
different colours on the vehicles carrying civil servants is
absolutely imperative because that facilitates their movement
and enables them to effectively discharge their duties.
D
We have considered the respective arguments and
perused the provisions of the 1988 Act, the 1989 Rules as also
the Rules framed by various State Governments and
Administration of Union Territories. We have also gone through
notifications dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2005 issued by the
E
Central Government under proviso (iii) to Rule 108(1) of the
1989 Rules.
The basics of Indian Republic were outlined in the
Resolution moved by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in the meeting
F
of the Constituent Assembly held on 13.12.1946. The relevant
portions of the same are extracted below:
"(1 )This Constituent Assembly declares its firm and solemn
resolve to proclaim India as an Independent Sovereign
Republic and to draw up for her future governance a
G
Constitution; (2)WHEREIN the territories that now comprise
British India, the territories that now form the Indian States,
and such other parts of India as are outside British India
and the States as well as such other territories as are
willing to be constituted into the Independent Sovereign
H
I
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 17 S.C.R.
A
India, shall be a Union of them all; and (3) WHEREIN the
said territories, whether with their present boundaries or
with such others as may be determined by the Constituent
Assembly and ihereafter according to the Law of the
Constitution, shall possess and retain the status of
B
autonomous Units, together with residuary powers, and
exercise all powers and functions of government and
administration, save and except such powers and functions
as are vested in or assigned tci the. Union, or as are
inherent or implied in the Union or resulting therefrom; and
c
(4) WHEREIN all power and authority of the Sovereign
Independent India. its constituent parts and organs of
government. are derived from the people; and
(5\WHEREIN shall be guaranteed and secured to all the
people of India justice. social. economic and political;
D
E
F
G
H
equality of status, of opportunity, and before the law:
freedom of thought. expression. belief. faith worship,
vocation. association and action. subject to law and public
morality; and (6)WHEREIN adequate safeguards shall be
provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and
depressed and other backward classes;
and
(?)WHEREBY shall be maintained the integrity of the
territory of the Republic and its sovereign rights on land,
sea, and air according to Justice and the law of civilised
nations, and (8)this ancient land attains its rightful and
honoured place in the world and make its full and willing
contribution to the promotion of world peace and the
welfare of mankind.
I hope, the House will notice that in this Resolution,
although we have not used the word 'democratic' because
we thought it is obvious that the word 'republic' contains
that word and we did not want to use unnecessary words
and redundant words, but we have done something much
more than using the word. We have given the content of
democracy in this Resolution and not only the content of
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH
95
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
democracy but the content, if I may say so, of economic
A
democracy in this Resolution.
The Resolution placed before you to-day has equality as
B
its underlying theme. The different sections of the country
have been given autonomy and India as a whole remains
one with full sovereignty. We shall stand united in affairs
which demand our unity. The one important thing in the
Resolution is the recognition of India as a free country. Our
country is one and yet we shall give full freedom to its
various sections to have for themselves'whatever
.administration they liked. The present division of our
C
country into provinces may change. We shall do justice to
all communities and give them full freedom in their social
and religious affairs.
The word 'people' means all the people. I am myself a
D
servant of the farmers. To work with them is my highest
glorv. The term people' is comprehensive and contains all
the people. It is. therefore. my opinion that no adjective
should be attached·to it."
(emphasis added)
On 15.8.1947, Dr. Rajendra Prasad addressed the
Constituent Assembly of India wherein he identified the roles
of various sections of the society and the Government. The
English translation of the address is reproduced below:
"Let us in this momentous hour of our history, when we are
assuming power for the governance of our country, recall .
E
F
in grateful remembrance the services and sacrifices of all
those who laboured and suffered for the achievement of
G
the independence we are attaining today. Let us on this
historic occasion pay our homage to the maker of our
modern history, Mahatma Gandhi, who has inspired and
guided us through all these years of trial and travail and
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 17 S.C.R.
who in spite of the weight of years is still working in his
own way to complete what is left yet unaccomplished.
Let us gratefully acknowledge that while our achievement
is in no small measure due to our own sufferings, and
sacrifices, it is also the result of world forces and events
and last though not least it is the consummation and
fulfilment of the historic traditions and democratic ideals
of the British race whose farsighted leaders and statesmen
saw the vision and gave the pledges which are being
redeemed today. We are happy to have in our midst as a
representative of that race Viscount Mountbatten of Burma
and his consort who have worked hard and played such
an important part in bringing this about during the closing
scenes of this drama. The period of domination by Britain
over India ends today and our relationship with Britain is
henceforward going to rest on a basis of equality, of mutual
·goodwill and mutual profit.
It is undoubtedly a day of rejoicing. But there is only one ·
thought which mars and detracts from the fulness of this
happy event. India, which was made by God and Nature
to be one, which culture and tradition and history of
millenniums have made one, is divided today and many
there are on the other side of the boundary who would
much rather be on this side. To them we send a word of
cheer and assurance and ask them not to give way to
panic or despair but to live with faith and courage in peace
with their neighbours and fulfil the duties of loyal citizenship
and thus win their rightful place. We send our greetings to
the new Dominion which is being established today there
and wish it the best luck in its great work of governing that
region and making all its citizens happy and prosperous.
We feel assured that they all will be treated fairly and justly
without any distinction or discrimination. Let us hope and
pray that the day will come when even those who have
insisted upon and brought about this dlvision will realise
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH
97
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
India's essential oneness and we shall be united once
A
again. We must realise however that this can be brought
about not by force but by large heartedness and cooperation and by so managing our affairs on this side as
to attract those who have parted. It may appear to be a
dream but it is no more fantastic a dream than that of those
B
who wanted a division and may well be realised even
sooner than we dare hope for today.
More than a day of rejoicing it is a day of dedication for
all of us to build the India of our dreams. Let us turn our
C
eyes away from the past and fix our gaze on the future. We
have no quarrel with other nations and countries and let
us hope no one will pick a quarrel with us. By history and
tradition we are a peaceful people and India wants, to be
at peace with the world. India's Empire outside her own
borders has been of a different kind from all other Empires. · D
India's conquests have been the conquests of spirit which
did not impose heavy chains of slavery, whether of iron or
of gold, on others but tied other lands and other peoples
JQ_her with the more enduring ties of golden silk-of culture
and-civilisation, of religion and knowledge (gyan). We shall
E
follow that same tradition and shall have no ambition save
that of contributing our little mite to the building of peace
and freedom in a war-distracted world by holding aloft the
banner under which we have marched to victory and
placing in a practical manner in the hands of the world the
F
great weapon of Non-violence which has achieved this
unique result. India has a great part to play. There is
something in her life and culture which has enabled her to
survive the onslaughts of time and today we witness a new
birth full of promise, if only we prove ourselves true to our
G
ideals.
Let us resolve to create conditions in this countrv when
every individual will be free and provided with the
wherewithal to develop and rise to his fullest stature. when
H
A
8
c
E
F
G
H
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 17 S.C.R.
poverty and squalor and ignorance and ill-health will have
vanished. when the distinction between high and low,
between rich and poor. will have disappeared •. when
religion will not only be professed and preached and
practised freely but will have become a cementing force
for binding man to man and not serve as a disturbing and
disrupting force dividing and separating, when
untouchability will have been forgotten like an unpleasant
night dream, when exploitation of man by man will have
ceased, when facilities and special arrangements will have
been provided for the adimjatis of India and for all others
who are backward, to enable them to catch up to others
anti when this land will have not only enough food to feed
its teeming millions but will once again have become a
land flowing with rivers of milk, when men and women will
be laughing and working for all they are worth in fields and
factories, when every cottage and hamlet will be humming
with the sweet music of village handicrafts and maids 'will·
be busy with them and singing to their tune-when the sun
and the moon will be shining on happy homes and loving
faces.
To bring all this about we need all the idealism and
sacrifice, all the intelligence and diligence, all the
determination and the power of organisation that we can
muster. We have many parties and groups with differing
ideals a";d ideologies. They are all trying to convert the
country to their own ideologies and to mould the
constitution and the administration to suit their own view
point. While they have the right to do so, the country and
the nation have the right to demand loyalty from them. All
must realise that what is needed most today is a great
construclrve effort-not strife, hard solid work-not
argumentation, and let us hope that all will be prepared to
make their contribution. We want the peasant to grow
more food, we want the workers to produce more goods,
we want our industrialists to use their intelligence, tact and
ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
99
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
resourcefulness for the common good. To all we must
A
assure conditions of decent and healthy life and
opportunities for self-improvement and self-realisation.
Not orily have the people to dedicate themselves to this
great task that lies ahead but those who have so far been
playing the role of rulers and regulators of the lives of our
men and women have to assume the role of servants. Our
army has won undying glory in distant lands for its bravery
and great fighting qualities: Our soldiers, sailors and airmen
have to realise that they now form a national army on whom
devolves the duty not only of defending the freedom which
we have won but also to help in a constructive way in
building up a ~ew life. There is no place in the armed forces
of our country which is not open to our people, and what
B
c
is more they are required to take the highest places as
soon as they can so that they may take full charge of our
D
defences. Our public servants in various departments of
Government have to shed their role as rulers and have to
become true servants of the people that their compeers
are in all free countries. The people and the Government
on their side have to give them their trust and assure them
conditions of service in keeping with the lives of the people
in whose midst they have to live and serve.
E
We welcome the Indian States which have acceded to
India and to their people we offer our hands of
F
comradeship. To the princes and the rulers of the States
we say that we have no designs against them. We trust
they will follow the example of the King of England and
become constitutional rulers. They would do well to take
as their model the British monarchical system which has
G
stood the shock of two successive world wars when so
many other monarchies in Europe have toppled down.
To Indians settled abroad in British Colonies and
elsewhere we send our good wishes and assurance of our
abiding interest in their welfare. To our minorities we give
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 17 S.C.R.
the assurance that they will receive fair and just treatment
and their rights will be respected and protected.
One of the great tasks which we have in hand is to
complete the constitution under which not only will freedom
and liberty be assured to each and all but which will enable
us to achieve and attain and enjoy its fulfilment and its fruits.
We must accomplish this task as soon as possible so that
we may begin to live and work under a constitution of our
own making, of which we may all be proud, and which· it
may become our pride and privilege to defend and to
preserve to the lasting good of our people and for the
service of mankind. In framing that constitution we shall
naturally draw upon the experience and knowledge of other
countries and nations no less than on our own traditions
and surroundings and may have at times to disregard the
lines drawn by recent history and lay down new boundary
lines not only of Provinces but also of distribution of
powers and functions. Our ideal is to have a constitution
that will enable the people's will to be expressed and
enforced and that will not only secure liberty to the
individual but also reconcile and make !hat .. liberty
subservient to the common good.
We have up to now been taking a pledge to achieve
freedom and to, undergo all sufferings and sacrifices for
it. Time has come when we have to take a pledge of
another kind. Let no one imagine that the time for work and
sacrifice is gone and the time for enjoying the fruits thereof
has come. Let us realise that the demand on our
enthusiasm and capacity for unselfish work in the future will
be as 'great as, if not greater than, what it has ever been
before. We have, therefore, to dedicate ourselves once
again to the great cause that beckons us. The task is great,
the times are propitious. Let us pray that we may have the
strength, the wisdom and the courage to fulfil it."
(emphasis added)
'
ABHAY SINGH v.