Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P.

on 5 April, 1993

Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993 Equivalent citations: AIR 1993 All 211, 1994 (42) BLJR 75, 1993 CriLJ 2256 Author: D Chauhan Bench: D Chauhan, M Katju ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The last bulwark of a State is its Courts of justice. There can be a State without an army but public confidence in the authority of the State cannot remain if there are no courts of justice so to run the rule of law with the rule of life. The Courts of justice work with the self generated centrifugal force owing to the faith of the people. They not only enjoy the faith of the people but at the same time also promote faith of the people in political and administrative hierarchy. The stream of administration of justice which is a sacred one like river Ganges emanates from the Constitution which unlike other rivers flowing from the same source has in itself a potentiality of cleansing mechanism not allowing pollution to overcome it, leading to stagnation of rule of law. The mechanism is based on dignity and honour conferred on the Hon'ble Judges by assigning distinct and sovereign position under the Constitution. They are constitutional appointees and functionaries possessed of faith of the people which cannot be allowed to receive shock at any hand. They command respect and obedience from all irrespective of political or religious belief or faith of the people. Slightest disrespect to the system or its constituents may lead to disastrous effect annihilating the very fabric of rule of law. Any thing which erodes the faith of the people in the rule of law may be not only fatal to the system but may also be a dangerous obstruction of justice requiring proper treatment so as to maintain the majesty of law. Thus the prime necessity of the hour is that the faith of the people in the Hon'ble Judges and the system of judicial administration may not be shaken, diluted, diminished or wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person or authority, high or low. 2. ''This Court, having come to know about the contumacious behaviour meted to the two Hon'ble Judges of this Court having sitting at Lucknow Bench of this Court, who while going to attend the Court were intercepted, interrogated and put to inconvenience at the hands of constable who unmindful of his authority detained their vehicles, though at different point of time, which were fitted with red light at the top and challenged. We took cognizance of the matter in suo motu exercise of power under Art. 226 of the Constitution to set at rest the doubt regarding use of red light by them at the top of their vehicles and issued notices to the State of Uttar Pradesh by passing the order:-"The provisions for supply of the vehicles to the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, who are constitutional appointees and functionaries, are provided in service conditions. These vehicles, when supplied, were equipped with red lights at the top which was done at the cost of the Government. It has come to the notice of this Court now that at Lucknow the vehicles of two of the Hon'ble Judges (Hon. Mr. Justice B.N. Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Bajpai) were challenged for the use of red light at the top. Such an act, prima facie, was not only illegal, but also contemptuous. What action was taken by the Registry of this Court is not known to the Court. However, the Registry is directed to place all the material before this Court in this regard and for this purpose notice be issued to the Registrar of this High Court. The only relevant provision under the Rules known as Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 seems to be Rule 108, which is extracted below:-Use of red or white lights:-- No motor vehicle shall show a red light to the Front or light other than red to the rear:
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/ 1

Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993

Provided that the provision of this rule shall not apply to(i) the internal lighting of the vehicle or (ii) the amber light, if displayed by any direction indicator or top light; (iii) a vehicle carrying high dignitaries as specified by the Central Government or the State Government from time to time or a vehicle escorting such vehicle; (iv) the blinker type of red light with purple glass fitted to an ambulance van used for conveying patients; or (v) to a vehicle having a lamp fitted with an electrical bulb, if the power of the bulb does not exceed seven watts and the lamp is fitted with frosted glass or any other material which has the effect of diffusing the light. Proviso (iii) to this Rule provides that a vehicle carrying high dignitaries as specified by the Central Government or the State Government from time to time or a vehicle escorting such vehicle, may use red light at the front. This Rule prima facie makes it clear that the Constitutional appointees and functionaries are high dignitaries of the country and they are included in the Rule and require no separate specification. It prima facie seems to us that the provision for specification of the high dignitaries is only for the persons, who are not the constitutional appointees or the functionaries and who may be specified on some criteria, deserving their specification as high dignitaries. It seems that the act, as aforesaid, was prima facie illegal. Let a case be registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition in exercise of suo motu power under Art. 226 of the Constitution and notice be issued to the State Government at the Government cost, which may be served on the Chief Standing Counsel of the State Government, who may file a counter-affidavit within three weeks. List this petition for further orders and hearing before us as part heard on 16-2-1993." 2. Consequent upon notices so issued and served on the learned Chief Standing Counsel State of U.P., Sri Babu Ram Tripathi, a counter affidavit sworn by Sri Janardan Prasad, Special Transportation Secretary, U.P. Government Lucknow was filed. Additional Registrar posted at Lucknow Bench of this Court also submitted a report to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) vide letter No. 932/1993 Lucknow dated February 12, 1993 which is placed on the record of the case. 3. Before dilating on the question involved regarding the user of the red light by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court at the top of their vehicles, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant provisions of law as contained in Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (for brevity hereinafter referred as "the Act 1939") and the Rules framed thereunder known as U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (for brevity hereinafter referred as "the 1940 Rules") and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity hereinafter referred as "the 1988 Act") and the Rules 1989 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the 1989 Rules"). (a) Section 70 of the Act 1939 which is extracted below conferred the power on the State Government for making rules, inter alia, regarding signalling appliances, lamps and reflectors:-"Power to make rules:-- (a) A State Government may make Rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/

Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993

(b) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules may be made under this section governing any of the following matters, either generally in respect of motor vehicles or trailers or in respect of motor vehicles or trailers of a particular class or in particular circumstances namely: (a)..... (b) seating arrangements in public service vehicles and that protection of passengers against the weather. (c) ...... (d) brakes and steering gear; (e) the use of safety glass; (f) signalling appliances, lamps and reflectors; (g) speed governors; (h) the emission of smoke, visible vapour, sparks, ashes, grit or oil; (i) the reduction of noise emitted by or caused by vehicles; (j) ..... In exercise of power under Section 70 of the Act of 1939, the State Government framed rule 112, of 1940 Rules relevant of which is extracted below:-"Rule 112, sub-clause (7) "No motor vehicles shall show a red light to the front or other than a red light to the rear, provided that this provision shall not apply to the internal lighting of the vehicle or to an amber light if displayed by any direction indicator; Provided further that the Governor may display a red light in the front of the car just above the windscreen and the persons, who are entitled to display the National Flag on their cars, may have a red light in front of the car on the rod in which the National Flag is displayed during the day." The sub-rule (7) dealt with red light. It prohibited use of red light in front of motor vehicle with the exception in the proviso which related to the Governor who was authorised to display a red light in the front of the car just above the windscreen and also the persons who were entitled to display the National Flag on their cars, who were authorised to have a red light in front of the car on the rod in which the National Flag was displayed during the day. (b) The 1988 Act which repealed the 1939 Act came into force on 22-5-1989 vide Notification No. S.O. 368 (E) dated 22-5-1989. Section 110 of the 1988 Act, which is extracted confers the power on the Central Government for making rules, inter alia, regarding signalling appliances, lamps and reflectors. "Power of Central Government to make rules:-(i) The Central Government may make rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:-Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/ 3

Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993

(a) the width, height, length and overhang of vehicles and of the loads carried; (b) the size, nature and condition of tyres; (c) brakes and steering gear; (d) the use of safety glasses including prohibition of the use of tinted safety glasses; (e) signalling appliances, lamps and reflectors; (f) speed governors; (g) the emision of smoke, visible vapour, sparks ashes, grit or oil. (h) the reduction of noise embitted by or caused by vehicles; (i) the embossment of chassis number and engine number and the date of manufacture; (j) safety belts, handle bars of motor cycles, auto-dippers, and other equipments essential for safety or drivers, passengers and other road users; (k) standards of the components used in the vehicle as in built safety devices; (l) provision for transportation of goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life; (m) standards for emission of air pollutants;" In exercise of power under Section 110 of 1988 the Central Government framed the Rule 108 in 1989 Rules which is extracted below:-"Use of red or white lights:-- No motor vehicle shall show a red light to the front or light other than red to the rear; Provided that the provision of this rule shall not apply to-(i) the internal lighting of the vehicle; or (ii) the amber light, if displayed by any direction indicator or top light; (iii) a vehicle carrying high dignitaries as specified by the Central Government or the State Government from time to time, or a vehicle escorting such vehicle; (iv) the blinker type of red light with purple glass fitted to an ambulance van used for conveying patients; or (v) to a vehicle having a lamp fitted with an electrical bulb, if the power of the bulb does not exceed seven watts and the lamp is fitted with frosted glass or any other material which has the effect of diffusing the light." The 3rd sub proviso to Rule 108 of 1989 Rules which is relevant for the purposes of consideration and determination of the question in the present case at the cost of repetition is reproduced:-"a vehicle carrying high dignitaries as specified by the Central Government or the State Government from time to time or a vehicle escorting such vehicle."
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/ 4

Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993

4. Heard the learned Chief Standing Counsel Sri B.R. Tripathi who at the outset stated that the State Government has no other material in the context of the matter to which the present case is related except what has been stated in the counter-affidavit and annexed thereto. Realising the gravity of the matter her persuaded the Court to decide the matter declaring the law closing down the chapter once for ever so that no person or authority may under any misapprehension of legal position, in future, resort to exhibit such a disgraceful conduct. He fairly submitted that the State Government in the counter-affidavit has not taken the stand rebutting the position as stated in the order of this Court dated 23-1-1993, where against counter-version was asked for by this court, that the Hon'ble Judges are the persons amongst high dignitaries of the country, being appointees and functionaries under the Constitution. 5. In the back ground of the facts the petition is being disposed of finally. 6. The learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted in the shape of preliminary objection that the Government of India is a necessary party founded on the fact that the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court, under the Constitution are appointed by the President of India and any rule with regard to them under Rule 108(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 could be made by the Government of India. 7. The objection is sans merit. The question involved here is regarding declaration of legal position in face of the 3rd clause of proviso to Rule 108 of the 1989 Rules. However, the objection can be viewed from two angles:-One:--The rule making power in respect of use of lamps under Section 110 of the 1988 Act is with the Central Government and the Central Government in exercise of its power framed the Rule 108 in this regard. The 3rd clause of the proviso to the said Rule authorises both the Central as well as the State Government for specifying high dignitaries. The word as used in the Rules are "Central Government or the State Government". Thus, the power for specifying high dignitaries could be exercised by any of them and the competence of the State Government in this regard would be uneffected by the factum as to who is the appointing authority of the High dignitaries. It appears that such dignitaries must be located in the official capacity in the State and the order to be operative throughout the territory of India. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court in the State are appointed by the President of India under Art. 217 of the Constitution. Second, the State Legislature in the State of U.P. is dissolved and the State is under President Rule and the functions of the State are looked after by the Central Government through the same administrative machinery of the State. 8. Undoubtedly there could be two categories of public functionaries(a) one, those appointed under the Constitution on the post/office, contained in the Constitution and function thereunder. (b) Other, those appointed under some statute or the rules, regulations or the bye laws, as the case may be framed thereunder or the rules framed under the Constitution and function on the post created thereunder and are specified under Rule 108. 9. The question regarding coverage of the Hon'ble Judge under the category (a) (supra) is not res integra. 10. Who are the dignitaries or High dignitaries is not defined under the 1988 Act or the 1989 Rules or under the 1939 Act or the 1940 Rules and as such dictionaries may be resorted to discover what these might be. 11. The word is not crystal, transparent and unchanged. It is the skin of a living thought and may vary greately in colour and context according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used. So the fundamental rule
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/ 5

Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993

is that the meanings of words and expressions used in the Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear. Thus, the meaning of the word "dignitary" or "high dignitary" has to take colour by the context in which it is used. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary Vol. II page 1067 the word "high" means elevated or advanced in rank, equality and character. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyar 1987 Edition page 337 the word "dignitary" is defined as one who holds an exalted rank or office. 12(a). Under the Constitution for the appointment of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges, apart from Advocate General and Attorney General, Educational Qualification is provided. They cannot be illiterate. They are not the Government servant but Constitutional functionaries. The Constitutional functionaries under the Constitution can either be removed by process of impeachment, no confidence or on pleasure theory. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court are not elected and therefore there is no question of their removal by vote of no confidence. They are appointed and are removable by impeachment on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity and the both procedure and grounds are stricter than other functionaries such as the President, Speaker etc. The oath as administered to the Hon'ble Judge is also different and the words "that I will truly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or illwill and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws are found in the oath of the Hon'ble Judge and no other constitutional functionary, which brings in him the faith of the people. Under Art. 226 of the Constitution, a High Court Judge is under restriction not to plead and act in any court or authority in the territory of India except the Supreme Court and other High Courts. A retired Judge can be requested to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court. A Judge can be requested by the Chief Justice of India with the consent and after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court to attend at the sittings of the Supreme Court as ad hoc Judge. Even a retired Judge of a High Court can sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Every Hon'ble Judge of the High Court presides over it as a court of record possessed of all the general powers. 12(b). High Court is a creation of and functions under the Constitution and constituted of a Chief Justice and the Judges. In High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Amod Kumar Srivastava a Full Bench case reported in 1993 (1) UPLBEC 378 : (1993 All LJ 525) a question arose for consideration as to whether constitutional authority which has been assigned one of the essential function of the State i.e. dispensation of justice is regal or not and the Court held that the High Court exercises its constitutional function which can be termed as regal or sovereign functions. The relevant portion runs in para 6 is as extracted:-"The question which arises for consideration is as to whether a constitutional authority which has been assigned one of the essential function of the State i.e. dispensation of justice is regal or not. In the case of Bangalore Water Supply V. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 : 1978 Lab IC 467, Hon'ble the Supreme Court laid down two tests for finding out as to whether a constitutional authority exercises regal or sovereign functions or not. The tests laid down are, firstly that whether the authority is discharging primary and inalienable functions of the constitutional government and, secondly, whether the functions of the State could be left to private enterprises to be performed. Let us examine whether the functions of the High Court conforms to the two tests, stated above for being termed as regal or sovereign or not. The dispensation of justice which is one of the primary function of the State has been exclusively entrusted to the High Court by the Constitution of India. Except the High Court no other authority is entrusted to discharge the function of administration of justice by interpreting law. Further under the Constitution the High Court is not empowered to alienate its function of dispensation of justice and supervision and control of subordinate courts to any private enterprises or to corporation. In view of this I find that the High Court conforms to the two tests laid down by the Supreme Court for being termed as regal. In the case of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur v.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/ 6

Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993

Its employees, AIR 1960 SC 675, it was held that regal functions shall be confined to legislative power, administration of law and judicial power. From this I conclude that the High Court exercises primary and inalienable functions of the State which cannot be left to the private enterprises to be performed." 13. Thus ajudge of a High Court who is a person appointed under Art. 217 of the Constitution by the President of India functions under the Constitution is a person of distinction, holding a high office of dignity and honour and the word Hon'ble is always prefixed before his name. 14(a). The rules which are subordinate legislation cannot determine the status of constitutional appointees and functionaries as to whether they are high dignitaries or not i.e. whether such persons are holders of high dignity and honour or such a office is high or not. The subordinate legislation also cannot be interpreted in a manner relegating the status and dignity of constitutional appointees and functionaries by saying that they in spite of being high dignitaries are not High dignitaries, but those who on being specified by or under subordinate legislation alone are to be the High dignitaries. Such a construction would not only be arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the constitution but also tends to strip off the constitutional appointees and functionaries of their dignity and honour, disturbing their position of distinction, exhibiting disregard to them. No such fiction is permissible. Under the subordinate legislation authorisation for creating real things as artificialis the constitutional appointees and functionaries cannot be left to the will of the executive for specification of their status at him and fancy. There can be no two opinions that the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court, who are appointees and functionaries under the Constitution, are High dignitaries. 14(b). The problem can also be viewed from another angle so to limit the specification confined to the high dignitaries i.e. the constitutional appointees and functionaries. Had it been the intention of the rule to limit the specification amongst the high dignitaries i.e. the constitutional appointees and functionaries, then the word "high dignitary" in the 3rd clause to proviso to rule 108 of the 1989 Rules would have been preceded by the word "such", which would have meant of the same kind. In such a situation the specification would have confined to the class which constitutionally by virtue of appointment and functioning under the constitution recognized as such. The nonuser of the word "such" before the words "high dignitary" leads for an interpretation that the constitutional appointees and functionaries such as Hon'ble Judges of the High Court by virtue of being their status of high dignitary are implicitly covered under the 3rd proviso to Rule 108 of 1989 Rules requiring no specification. Thus the specification under the rule referred to above is confined to the persons other than the constitutional appointees and functionaries whose specification may be required under special circumstances so to elevate their status to the category of high dignitary. However, no specification is necessary for High Court Judges, and it is implicit that they are high dignitaries. 14(c). Still there could be a third vision that the constitutional appointees and functionaries such as the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court, who undoubtedly are from amongst the high dignitaries of the country and if they while interpreting the 3rd clause of the proviso to Rule 108 of the 1989 Rules, are excluded from its purview, then the same would lead to anamolous situation disgracing the constitutional appointees and functionaries on specification of the persons who otherwise are not the high dignitaries, such awakward position cannot be allowed to come into play. Therefore, it is established that the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court who are the high dignitaries of the country are also High dignitaries qua Rule 108 warranting no fresh specification having been covered thereunder by implication and are entitled to use red light at the top of their vehicles. The interpretation that the constitutional appointees and functionaries are excluded from the purview of the Rule 108 would defeat the object of rule providing for identity of high dignitaries, so to save them from traffic hazard. 14(d). The 3rd clause to proviso to Rule 108 of 1989 Rules as it stands gives no indication as to the basis regarding specification of high dignitaries and power is not confined within defined limits laying down any
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/ 7

Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993

criterion regarding specification of high dignitaries is unpredictable and even the institutional appointees and functionaries would not otherwise know where they are. In this back ground the rule requires such interpretation so to predict the position of constitutional appointees and functionaries as high dignitaries. 15. The learned Chief Standing Counsel fairly did not advert to any other interpretation. It remained undisputed that the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court by virtue of their constitutional status are high dignitaries. According to him also no such interpretation to Rule 108 of 1989 Rules which lowers down the status and dignity of the constitutional appointees and functionaries including the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court can be given. 16. It needs to be noticed that the Chief Standing Counsel, State of U.P. Sri Babu Ram Tripathi and the Special Secretary, Transport, State of U.P. Sri Janardan Prasad exhibited their fair conduct in assisting the Court in coming to just conclusion who deserve appreciation. The appointment to public services and posts in connection with union or of any State is for serving all the three wings of the Constitution. 17. The position as stated in the order dated 23-1-93 has not been denied. The order contains the fact that the vehicles are supplied to the Hon'ble Judges fitted with red light at the top on Government expense. It, by itself also indicates the Government view that the judges of the High Court. By virtue of their status, are the high dignitaries requiring no separate specification qua, the 3rd clause of the proviso to Rule 108 of 1989 Rules who are implicitly covered thereunder. 18. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the deponent did his best efforts to trace the material but could trace out the material filed as Annexures 1 and 2. Annexure No. 1 is the G.O. No. 2691 T/ XXX-4-27 P-77 dated August 4, 1981. In this order, Rule 112 (7) of 1940 Rules has been mentioned, and relates to user of red and blue lights on vehicles and is addressed to the all District Magistrates. It has not been issued under any authority of law and has not been published. Apart, from that after coming into force of the 1988 Act and 1989 Rules, it has, even otherwise, lost its sanctity as the 1939 Act and 1940 Rules have been superseded and under S. 110 of 1989 Act the power to make rules in regard to signalling appliances, lamps and reflectors vests in the Central Government when earlier it was with the State Government under S.70 of the 1939 Act. Thus, the said G.O. has no sanctity and significance so far as the controversy in the present case is involved and has nothing to do with the showing of red light to the front of the vehicle under Rule 108 of the 1989 Rules. 19. As regards the said G.O. dated 4-8-1981 which relates to user of blue lights on the vehicles, for the present it is not necessary for this Court to dilate on it and express any opinion as it is not the subject matter for consideration in the case. Annexure C.A.-11 to the counter-affidavit, G.O. No. 1367 T/XXX-4-89-25p/77 dated 4-4-89, is also of no avail as the 1940 Rules have lost sanctity. It is anterior to the date of coming into force of the 1989 Rules which have come into force vide Notification G.S.R. 933/E dated 28-10-1989. The said G.O. even otherwise is not applicable so far as the Hon'ble Judges of the Allahabad High Court are concerned. 20. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit it is also stated that so far no rules have been made specifying High dignitaries as given in clause (3) of Rule 108 of the Motor Vehicles Act, either by the Central Government or the State Government. Apparently, the word "rule" seems to be typing error as under Rule 108 of the 1989 Rule, no rules are to be framed and only specification is to be made regarding the high dignitaries. So far as the position of Hon'ble Judges of the High Court, the constitutional appointees and functionaries, is concerned, there would be no contrary effect under Rule 108 of the 1989 Rule regarding the use of red light on the top of the vehicles by them being High dignitary requiring no specification, but of course the other persons, who are not the constitutional appointees and functionaries would not be entitled to use the red light at the top of the Vehicles used by them, unless under 3rd clause of proviso to Rule 108 of the 1989 Rule, they are specified.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/ 8

Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993

21. As regards the question of causing inconvenience to the two Hon'ble Judges sitting at Lucknow Bench for the use of red light at the top of their vehicles the Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench has submitted his report wherein, it is stated that in fact no challan was made but perhaps the car of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Bajpai was stopped by traffic constable, who interrogated about the legality for the use of the red light at the top of the staff car. Regarding Hon'ble Justice B. N. Misra, it is stated in the report that the driver attached to His Lordship, is at Allahabad, who may be enquired about. No enquiry report from the driver of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Misra has been placed on the record. Such a slackness is disapproved and deserves to be taken note of. The Registry of this Court is expected to be more alert to keep up the dignity of this Court and also come up to the standard and dignity of this Court. The report from the driver of Hon'ble Justice B. N. Misra is not called for as it is not proposed to take action against the constable, as we feel it might not be a mischeivous act, but may have been out of ignorance of the legal position, status and dignity of the Hon'ble Judge. Issuance of caution will suffice. 22. The matter of detaining the vehicles of the Hon'ble Judges having sitting at Lucknow Bench and interrogation by the traffic constable for using red light at the top of the vehicles, while they were proceedings to Court is serious one and should have been taken notice of immediately. Stopping of the vehicles of the Hon'ble Judges is in itself contemputuous in nature. Even if in the matter, some enquiry was required to be made then the same could have been made through proper channel by approaching the Registrar of the High Court instead of having resort to detaining the Hon'ble Judges, who were going to attend the Court, whereby not only causing inconvenience, but lowering their dignity in public esteem. Such a conduct causing inconvenience and exhibiting disrespect to a Hon'ble Judge, is contempt. In the context it needs to be made clear that the vehicle of any Hon'ble Judge cannot be detained or stopped except for a procession of a dead body passing through or on electronic traffic signal otherwise on some other expediency of such a nature the route may be diverted, if possible by advance intimation through the Registrar of the Court and in case of sudden emergent circumstance, by informing the driver of the Hon'ble Judge without exhibiting disrespectful conduct. While issuing notice of caution, we order accordingly. 23. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that under Rule 108 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court are entitled to use of the red light at the top of their vehicles (being constitutional appointees and functionaries enjoying the position of high dignitary and distinction) even though there is no specification under the 3rd clause to the proviso to Rule 108 of the 1989 Rules. 24. The question crops-up now is as to how the administrative machinary is to know that the vehicle belongs to the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court, so as to check the unauthorised persons from using the red light. In this connection it would be appropriate to direct the Registry of this Court to see that the vehicle of the Hon'ble Judge should contain the writing either on the number plate or separately, in terms "High Court Allahabad" on the official vehicle, otherwise the words "Judge, High Court, Allahabad". The said writing may also be in Hindi Devnagari. While making declaration and direction (supra) we issue a general mandamus to the State Government, its authorities, officers, employees, agents etc. not to creat any impediment in the user of the red light at the top of the vehicle by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and also for not causing any inconvenience and obstruction of any nature in any manner except as authorised under this order. All the concerned authorities and persons are mandated for complying with the order punctually. 25. With the above directions, the petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, U. P. Secretary, Transport Department, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow for being circulated to all concerned departments, authorities and concerned persons for punctual compliance.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/ 9

Red Light On The Cars Of The Hon'Ble ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 1993

26. Petition allowed.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/520089/

10