- (1.) One of the several questions of public and constitutional importance raised by Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, who initially appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the special leave petitions filed against order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 15440 of 1998 quashing the withdrawal of "Z Grade Security" provided to Respondent No.6-Pramod Tiwari, but later on assumed the role of an Amicus, is whether the Constitution contemplates categorization of citizens into two groups and whether the entitlement to use signs and symbols of authority, such as lights of different colours including red lights, insignia, and convoys/escorts by public servants and persons, who hold public offices under the States or the Union of India, is contrary to constitutional ethos and the basic feature of republicanism enshrined in the Constitution.
(2.) Notice of the special leave petitions was issued on 25.8.2010. After an adjournment, the Court passed detailed order dated 14.10.2011, which reads as under: "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 the Court."
(3.) On 17.1.2013, the Court considered the prayer made in the application filed on behalf of the SLP petitioner and passed the following order: "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.";