Tweet
In a maiden step towards determining whether public servants should be entitled to beacon and escort cars on account of their position or professional hazard, the Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from all States and Union Territories over the issues.
Taking the debate forward on the sensitive issue that is likely to face stiff opposition from the executive and the bureaucracy alike, a bench of Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhyay said, “Once we start understanding that public servants are servants of the people, perhaps the mindset (to possess such symbols of authority) may undergo a change.”
The comment came during the hearing on a petition filed by UP resident Abhay Singh who challenged grant of security cover to Congress MLA Pramod Tewari from Pratapgarh. Tewari enjoyed Z plus security since 1985 without any threat perception being reviewed even once. On September 23, the Court converted the matter into a PIL.
The Court issued notices to all States asking their response to a set of five questions of law formulated by senior advocate Harish Salve, who is assisting the Court as amicus curiae.
Calling public servants’ demand to use beacons, armed security guards and escort vehicles to flaunt their authority as a mindset problem, he said, “Here the idea of providing security is to make it visible.” He reproduced a speech made by former President Rajendra Prasad who described public servants as people to serve and not govern.
Linking it with the Constitution’s Article 18 that seeks to abolish all titles and the concept of republic enshrined in the Preamble, Salve raised a question, “Whether the grant of protection, particularly at the expense of the State, on the basis of an office held by a person or any other factor is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional.”
Hoping that the debate would reach a logical conclusion, the bench directed the matter to be listed next on December 7.
Taking the debate forward on the sensitive issue that is likely to face stiff opposition from the executive and the bureaucracy alike, a bench of Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhyay said, “Once we start understanding that public servants are servants of the people, perhaps the mindset (to possess such symbols of authority) may undergo a change.”
The comment came during the hearing on a petition filed by UP resident Abhay Singh who challenged grant of security cover to Congress MLA Pramod Tewari from Pratapgarh. Tewari enjoyed Z plus security since 1985 without any threat perception being reviewed even once. On September 23, the Court converted the matter into a PIL.
The Court issued notices to all States asking their response to a set of five questions of law formulated by senior advocate Harish Salve, who is assisting the Court as amicus curiae.
Calling public servants’ demand to use beacons, armed security guards and escort vehicles to flaunt their authority as a mindset problem, he said, “Here the idea of providing security is to make it visible.” He reproduced a speech made by former President Rajendra Prasad who described public servants as people to serve and not govern.
Linking it with the Constitution’s Article 18 that seeks to abolish all titles and the concept of republic enshrined in the Preamble, Salve raised a question, “Whether the grant of protection, particularly at the expense of the State, on the basis of an office held by a person or any other factor is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional.”
Hoping that the debate would reach a logical conclusion, the bench directed the matter to be listed next on December 7.
