ITEM NO.305 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).25237/2010
(From the judgement and order dated 21/08/2009 in CMWP No.15440/1998 of The
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)
ABHAY SINGH Petitioner(s)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and exemption
from filing O.T. and correction of pleadings and permission to file
additional affidavit and c/delay in filing affidavit and intervention and
WITH SLP(C) NO. 23984 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for urging addl.grounds and permission to file additional
affidavit and exemption from filing O.T. and with prayer for interim relief
and office report)
Date: 01/05/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Mr.Harish N.Salve, Sr.Adv.
Ms.Christi Jain, Adv.
Mr.Anurag Gohil, Adv.
Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv.
For MOH Ms.Indira Jaisingh, ASG
Mr.Aman Ahluwalia, Adv.
Mr.Farrukh Rasheed, Adv.
Ms.Supriya Jain, Adv.
Mr.Manjit Singh, AAG
Mr.Tarjit Singh, Adv.
Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.
For State of Punjab Mr.Sidharth Luthra, ASG
Mr.Ajay Bansal, AAG
Mr.Kuldip Singh, Adv.
Mr.Parduman Singh, Adv.
Mr.Gaurav Yadav, Adv.
For State of Mr.Rakesh Diwedi, Sr.Adv.
Uttarakhand Mr.Abhishek Atrey, Adv.
Mr.Prateek Dwivedi, Adv.
For State of Raj. Mr.Jasbir Singh Malik, AAG
Mr.Varun Punia, Adv.
Ms.Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
For State of Mr.Narendra Hooda, Sr.AAG
Haryana Mr.Manjit Singh, AAG
Ms.Nupur Choudhary, Adv.
For State of Mah. Mr.Shankar Chillarge, AAG
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.
For State of U.P. Mr.Gaurav Bhatia, AAG
Mr.Anuvrat Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Pankaj Pandey, Adv.
For State of H.P. Mr.Suryanaryana Singh, AAG
Ms.Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
For State of T.N. Mr.Subramoniam Prasad, AAG
Mr.R.Rakesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr.T.Mouli Mahendran, Adv.
For State of Kerala Mr.Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv.
Mr.B.R.Mohan Kumar, Adv.
For State of Assam Mr.Navnit Kumar, Adv.
For State of Andhra Mr.Koka Raghava Rao, Sr.Adv.
For State of Mr.C.D.Singh, Adv.
For State of J & K Mr.Sunil Fernandes, Adv.
Ms.Insha Mir, Adv.
For State of Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv.
Arunachal Pradesh Mr.Rituraj Biswas, Adv.
For State of Odisha Mr.Shibashish Misra, Adv.
Mr.Suvinay Dash, Adv.
For State of Manipur Mr.Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv.
For State of W.B. Mr.Bikas Kar Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For UT of Puducherry Mr.V.G.Pragasam, Adv.
Mrs.Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.
For State of M.P. Mr.Mishra Saurabh, Adv.
Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Adv.
For RR No.6 Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Adv.
Mr.Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Adv.
For UT, Chandigarh Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv.
For State of Gujarat Ms.Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
For State of Mr.Jayesh Gaurav, Adv.
Jharkhand Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv.
For State of Mrs.K.Enatoli Sema, Adv.
Nagaland Mr.Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
For State of Sikkim Mrs.Aruna Mathur, Adv.
Mr.Yusuf Khan, Adv.
For State of Goa Mr.Siddharth Bhatnagar, Adv.
Mr. T. Mahipal, Adv.
For State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr.Manish Kumar, Adv.
For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr.Ritu Raj Biswas, Adv.
For State of Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv.
For State of Mr.Ranjan Kumar Mukherjee, Adv.
Meghalaya Mr.S.C.Ghosh, Adv.
Mr.Tayenjam Momo Singh, Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Notice in this petition filed against order dated 21.8.2009
passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was issued on
On 23.9.2011, Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel made
some submissions and then sought adjournment for the formulation of the
questions which, according to him, are of great constitutional and public
importance and need to be decided by the Court.
On 14.10.2011, the Court passed detailed order, the relevant
portions of which are reproduced below:
“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 directing
consideration of the case of respondent No. 6 for 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 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 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. Whether the permission to use signs and symbols of authority,
such as beacons, insignia, and 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?
2. 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?
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 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 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 counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Notice is returnable in six weeks.
Keeping in view the importance of the questions framed
hereinabove, we request the learned Solicitor General to assist
On 17.1.2013, the Court considered the prayer made in the
application filed on behalf of the petitioner and passed the following
“Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel representing the
petitioner in S.L.P.(C) No.25237 of 2010 place before the
Court an application for direction in which it has been prayed
that a direction may be issued to all the States and Union
Territories to furnish information under the following 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.
(c) The Names and the designation of the persons to whom
security personnel have been provided and the number of security
persons provided to them.
(d) Total cost borne by the state for providing security in
terms as aforesaid.
(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.
Learned counsel for the States and Union Territories must
ensure that affidavits of the responsible officers of the
Home Department of their respective States 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 Shri Harish N.
Salve, learned senior counsel and passed detailed order, the relevant
portions of which are reproduced below:
“Before considering the issues raised in the 2nd note made
available by Shri Salve, we deem it proper to issue the
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 Vice-President, 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/relatives of the public functionaries
within or outside the State/Union Territory.
4. The details of the persons who are facing criminal charges,
charges of violating any provisions of law and to 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 provide details
of the review undertaken of the security provided to public
functionaries and private individuals.
7. All the States and Union Territories shall file copies of the
Rules/Orders which authorises the police and other functionaries
to close roads for movement of public functionaries or their
8. The notifications issued by the Central Government, State
Governments and the Union Territories authorising use of Sirens
other than by the man in uniform and those engaged and providing
medical facilities to the patients and victims of
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
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 directions
were issued in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and corresponding provisions of the
Rules framed by the States.
Today, Shri Harish N.Salve, learned senior counsel, pointed out
that the States of Punjab and Haryana have not filed affidavits. Let the
Home Secretaries of both the States appear in person on the next date of
hearing and offer their explanation as to why the required affidavits were
not filed within the time prescribed by the Court.
Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for NCT of Delhi and other Union Territories placed before the
Court xerox copies of Circulars dated 28.06.2001, 14.01.2002,
19/24.03.2008, 24.11.2008 and 11.03.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs on the subject of providing security to protectees during their
journey outside their State/Union Territory and deployment of State police
personnel in Delhi for providing security to some of those who are residing
in Delhi. The same are taken on record.
Having perused the circulars, we direct the Government of NCT
of Delhi and the officers of the Police Department to ensure that the
instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs are rigorously
implemented in their letter and spirit. If any violation of the
instructions is brought to the notice of the Court in future, serious view
will be taken and the officers/officials responsible for lapses will be
To facilitate proper implementation of the instructions issued
by the Ministry of Home Affairs, we direct that the copies of this order be
sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Home Secretaries of
the Union Territories along with the copies of the circulars.
List the case on 09.07.2013.
On the next date of hearing, the Court will, in addition to the
issue relating to use of beacons lights by persons other than who are
entitled to do so in terms of the notifications issued by the competent
authority, consider the issue of providing security to those who are facing
criminal cases and private individuals. The Court shall also examine the
desirability of requiring the Central Government and the State
Governments/Union Territories to put in place more effective mechanism for
assessment of security threats to various individuals.
Within four weeks, The Chief Secretaries of all the States and
Home Secretaries of the Union Territories should forward separate list of
Central protectees and the protectees of the concerned State/Union
Territory to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs.
An affidavit of a senior officer of the Ministry of Home
Affairs should be filed on or before 26.6.2013 incorporating the details of
the information supplied by the Chief Secretaries of the States and Home
Secretaries of the Union Territories.
Learned counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh should
ensure that an affidavit is filed by Director General of Police along with
the orders passed from January 2013 to June 2013 depicting
assessment/reassessment of security threats to various individuals.
Copies of all the affidavits filed in compliance of this order
shall be supplied to the learned Amicus at least 7 days prior to 7th of
Registry is directed to send copies of this order to the Chief
Secretaries of all the States and Home Secretaries of Union Territories by
The Court Masters should make available copies of this order to
all the learned counsel.
(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora)
Court Master Court Master