<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the logic behind providing red beacons and security to a large number of people including MPs, MLAs and judges.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of justices G S Singhvi and H L Gokhale sought response from all states and Union Territories on expenditures incurred in providing them security. The court indicated that it would contemplate a complete ban on use of red beacons if states fail to justify such indiscriminate use. <br /><br />“We understand that certain category of people have red beacons. But what could be the reason behind providing red lights to sarpanchs, mukhiyas and for that matter, MPs, MLAs and even judges? Why should the Government of India not take a decision and scrap the rule that authorises such uses? Why don’t you make new rules, specifying the categories of people or institutions that should have red, yellow or blue lights? It cannot be for everyone,” the court said.<br /><br />The bench asked Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman to state the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act under which “these insignia of authority” were allowed and the categories of people to be provided with security by the state. “You will also have to explain to us the meaning of these sirens with the lights.”<br /><br />It added, “We can also give you example after example where the dignitary is at a distance of thousands of miles but dozens of security personnel are deployed at their houses”.<br /><br />Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for petitioner Abhay Singh, said the states which had filed their responses on justifying the use of read beacons according to rules, but failed to respect fundamental rights of equality and life. He questioned the Delhi Police affidavit which stated that certain categories of individuals, mainly from the government’s higher echelons, were to be provided with security to “facilitate bold and impartial decision-making.”<br /><br />The court was hearing a petition challenging Z-plus security provided to a Congress MLA from Uttar Pradesh. The court had earlier converted the special leave petition into a PIL to regulate the use of red beacons in vehicles meant for VIPs.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the logic behind providing red beacons and security to a large number of people including MPs, MLAs and judges.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of justices G S Singhvi and H L Gokhale sought response from all states and Union Territories on expenditures incurred in providing them security. The court indicated that it would contemplate a complete ban on use of red beacons if states fail to justify such indiscriminate use. <br /><br />“We understand that certain category of people have red beacons. But what could be the reason behind providing red lights to sarpanchs, mukhiyas and for that matter, MPs, MLAs and even judges? Why should the Government of India not take a decision and scrap the rule that authorises such uses? Why don’t you make new rules, specifying the categories of people or institutions that should have red, yellow or blue lights? It cannot be for everyone,” the court said.<br /><br />The bench asked Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman to state the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act under which “these insignia of authority” were allowed and the categories of people to be provided with security by the state. “You will also have to explain to us the meaning of these sirens with the lights.”<br /><br />It added, “We can also give you example after example where the dignitary is at a distance of thousands of miles but dozens of security personnel are deployed at their houses”.<br /><br />Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for petitioner Abhay Singh, said the states which had filed their responses on justifying the use of read beacons according to rules, but failed to respect fundamental rights of equality and life. He questioned the Delhi Police affidavit which stated that certain categories of individuals, mainly from the government’s higher echelons, were to be provided with security to “facilitate bold and impartial decision-making.”<br /><br />The court was hearing a petition challenging Z-plus security provided to a Congress MLA from Uttar Pradesh. The court had earlier converted the special leave petition into a PIL to regulate the use of red beacons in vehicles meant for VIPs.</p>
