<p>Concurring with a view that the red beacon is “a relic of Raj days”, the Supreme Court on Monday questioned different state governments over the long list of “dignitaries” prepared in order to justify their embellishment with the symbol of power atop their vehicles.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and V Gopala Gowda also asked if the use of beacons enhanced an officer’s duty to work. The court expressed its displeasure after counsel representing Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and other states started reading out respective state notifications allowing different functionaries to use red beacons.<br /><br />“Why should we not strike down all notifications? How do you say that it is justified to provide red beacon to mayor, superintendent of police, deputy superintendent, sub-divisional magistrate, zilla parishad chairman, etc? How did you allow Supreme Court judges to use red lights and sirens and how did you allow ministers to use sirens,” the bench asked Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, representing the Centre.<br /><br />The court gave the example of former home minister P Chidambaram saying that it was so paradoxical that he had refused to take any security paraphernalia, though other functionaries always vied for it.<br /><br />Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing as amicus curiae, submitted that the red beacon “is a relic of Raj days” and violates the right to equality as guaranteed in the Constitution. <br /><br />“The very notion of red beacon light is wrong. The definition of high dignitaries should be narrowed down. Civil servants and ministers are all public servants, serving the common man. They are paid salary by the taxes paid by the citizens,” he said. Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, read out its notification passed in June enumerating those who can be provided the beacon. The list included district judges, chief medical officers, chief judicial magistrates and DIG.“How does it enhance the performance of a district judge,” asked the court.<br /><br />Bhatia, on his part, submitted that it was a “sensitive issue.” The court was not impressed, as it asked how it affected the sensitivity of anyone.ASG Luthra, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the government was in the process of enhancing the penalty for unauthorised use of red beacons from Rs 100 to Rs 300 for first-time offender from Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,500 for repeat offenders. He urged the court to allow more time to consult all the states.<br /><br />The court, however, reserved its order on the plea for removal of such lights and sirens, while indicating that the use of red beacons would be limited to Constitutional authorities like President, vice-president, prime minister, chief justice of India, Lok Sabha speaker, governors in states, chief ministers, assembly speakers, chief justices of high courts, Cabinet and other ministers, ambulances and the police.</p>
<p>Concurring with a view that the red beacon is “a relic of Raj days”, the Supreme Court on Monday questioned different state governments over the long list of “dignitaries” prepared in order to justify their embellishment with the symbol of power atop their vehicles.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and V Gopala Gowda also asked if the use of beacons enhanced an officer’s duty to work. The court expressed its displeasure after counsel representing Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and other states started reading out respective state notifications allowing different functionaries to use red beacons.<br /><br />“Why should we not strike down all notifications? How do you say that it is justified to provide red beacon to mayor, superintendent of police, deputy superintendent, sub-divisional magistrate, zilla parishad chairman, etc? How did you allow Supreme Court judges to use red lights and sirens and how did you allow ministers to use sirens,” the bench asked Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, representing the Centre.<br /><br />The court gave the example of former home minister P Chidambaram saying that it was so paradoxical that he had refused to take any security paraphernalia, though other functionaries always vied for it.<br /><br />Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing as amicus curiae, submitted that the red beacon “is a relic of Raj days” and violates the right to equality as guaranteed in the Constitution. <br /><br />“The very notion of red beacon light is wrong. The definition of high dignitaries should be narrowed down. Civil servants and ministers are all public servants, serving the common man. They are paid salary by the taxes paid by the citizens,” he said. Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, read out its notification passed in June enumerating those who can be provided the beacon. The list included district judges, chief medical officers, chief judicial magistrates and DIG.“How does it enhance the performance of a district judge,” asked the court.<br /><br />Bhatia, on his part, submitted that it was a “sensitive issue.” The court was not impressed, as it asked how it affected the sensitivity of anyone.ASG Luthra, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the government was in the process of enhancing the penalty for unauthorised use of red beacons from Rs 100 to Rs 300 for first-time offender from Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,500 for repeat offenders. He urged the court to allow more time to consult all the states.<br /><br />The court, however, reserved its order on the plea for removal of such lights and sirens, while indicating that the use of red beacons would be limited to Constitutional authorities like President, vice-president, prime minister, chief justice of India, Lok Sabha speaker, governors in states, chief ministers, assembly speakers, chief justices of high courts, Cabinet and other ministers, ambulances and the police.</p>
