New Delhi:
How is the capacity to work enhanced by a beacon, or lal batti, on the car? - with this question to the government, the Supreme Court today indicated that it will allow only constitutional authorities to use beacons on their cars.
Hearing a petition, the court reserved its order but said it would strike down notifications by states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh that made an exception for "high dignitaries" to use beacons and sirens on their vehicles, flaunted by many as a symbol of power.
The court questioned the states on the term "high dignitaries."
"What is the idea of everyone in the list being a high dignitary? What is the objective of allowing beacons? How is working capacity enhanced by having red lights?" the court asked the states.
Harish Salve, as the Amicus Curiae or friend of the court, also said the use of the word "high dignitary" was against the Constitution.
When the Centre asked for more time to consult states, citing their lack of response, the Supreme Court said: "You don't have to wait for the consent of states. "
Leading by example was the judge heading the bench, GS Singhvi, who said he was not using the beacon on his own official car.
"My vehicle doesn't have a red light. But the police are protesting, they say I am violating their instructions. They say how can we tell whether a judge is in the car?" Justice Singhvi said.
The court had earlier said beacons and sirens can be used only on ambulances, fire services vehicles, police and army vehicles.
In earlier proceedings on January 17, the bench had said: "Security can be given to the head of state, the Prime Minister, Vice President, Speaker, Chief Justice of India, the heads of constitutional authorities and similar counterparts in the states. But why are all and sundry given beacons and security? Even mukhias and sarpanchs use beacons."
Hearing a petition, the court reserved its order but said it would strike down notifications by states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh that made an exception for "high dignitaries" to use beacons and sirens on their vehicles, flaunted by many as a symbol of power.
The court questioned the states on the term "high dignitaries."
"What is the idea of everyone in the list being a high dignitary? What is the objective of allowing beacons? How is working capacity enhanced by having red lights?" the court asked the states.
Harish Salve, as the Amicus Curiae or friend of the court, also said the use of the word "high dignitary" was against the Constitution.
When the Centre asked for more time to consult states, citing their lack of response, the Supreme Court said: "You don't have to wait for the consent of states. "
Leading by example was the judge heading the bench, GS Singhvi, who said he was not using the beacon on his own official car.
"My vehicle doesn't have a red light. But the police are protesting, they say I am violating their instructions. They say how can we tell whether a judge is in the car?" Justice Singhvi said.
The court had earlier said beacons and sirens can be used only on ambulances, fire services vehicles, police and army vehicles.
In earlier proceedings on January 17, the bench had said: "Security can be given to the head of state, the Prime Minister, Vice President, Speaker, Chief Justice of India, the heads of constitutional authorities and similar counterparts in the states. But why are all and sundry given beacons and security? Even mukhias and sarpanchs use beacons."
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
