By IANS,
New Delhi : The Supreme Court Friday expressed concern over the taxpayers’ money being spent on providing security to people who do not deserve it.
“How much are we spending on the security of the people who don’t deserve it?” observed a bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, while hearing a petition for its directions on the use of vehicles with beacon lights given to VIPs coupled with security personnel.
The court said that one can understand security given to the present and former presidents, vice presidents, prime ministers and Lok Sabha speakers and others but wondered why this was extended to others too.
Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman, who is assisting the court in the case, submitted a note which gave the details of the practices being followed in respect of using vehicles with flashing lights in the US, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and other countries.
Nariman told the court that as a rule, the beacon lights are used only when a person who has been extended these facilities, is in movement in discharge of their duties. He told the court that idea was “not wasting the time”.
Senior counsel Harish Salve, who appeared for petitioner Abhay Singh, told the court that what was there on the paper and the ground reality were “so far apart.”
He told the court that many more categories of people were pressing to be included in the category of those eligible for using beacon lights.
Nariman told the apex court that the use of cars with beacon lights and security personnel should not be on the basis of the office held alone but also on the need for extending such a facility.
The court was told that when people were not on duty, police should not be deployed for clearing the traffic.
At this, the court said that one would get to hear “most wonderful words” when traffic police stop such people.
The court gave the state governments and union territories eight weeks to file their response in pursuance of its Oct 14 directions. It posed four questions for them including: “Whether the permission to use signs and symbols of authority, such as beacons, insignia and convoys/escorts by public servant or any person who holds any office under the state or Union of India or any other person, is contrary to the Article 18 and 38 and the basic feature of republicanism enshrined in the Constitution?”
Another question to which a response was sought was “whether the State was and is under affirmative obligation to ensure that the vision of the founding fathers to change the perception of the State and its functionaries from ruler to public servants who are to serve rather than govern the people, was implemented in letter and spirit?”
The third question was “whether by virtue of Article 21 read with Article 14, the state is under an obligation to afford the same degree of protection to the safety and security of every person irrespective of any office held by such person or status of such person or any other factor?”
Lastly, the court sought a response to: “whether the grant of protection [by way of escorts or otherwise], particularly at the expense of the 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?”