G.S.N. Tripathi, J.
1. On 26-8-97, this Court issued the following show cause notice :-
based on the news item published in N.I. Patrika, an Allahabad daily of reporter.
Testing time again for Public:-
1. Cops death during duty ignored.
2. It was a day of acid test for the Allahabad administration especially for the police who even at the cost of their life did not allow any infringement of security of Ms. Mayawati, who did not even bother to condole the death of a constable, who died on way to VIP duty for the Chief Minister's visit today. The common public too had to face a lot of inconvenience since the entire crossing of the VIP route was cordoned for the security reasons for hours on end.
3. The terror of Ms. Mayawati hovered above everyone - be it the common beat cop or high-ranking officials and was not dispelled till she left the city. Every effort was made to avoid any mishap as the traditional VIP route via High Court was changed and the Chief Minister was taken from the highly secured military area via Carriappa Road and Akashwani.
4. It is reported that two constables Om Prakash Mishra and Shyamlal Tiwari were corning for VIP duty on a bullet motorcycle when they met with an accident near Sabhai village. They were rushed to the SRN Hospital, where Shyam Lal Tiwari succumed to his injuries and the condition of Om Prakash is stated to be serious.
5. Ironically, no police officer or subordinate visited the hospital to sec them and provide necessary aid. If even one among the large force of the police contingent present in the city would have donated blood to the poor victims, the life of one of them could have been saved.
6. It was only after the CM's departure from Circuit House, the officers present at police lines saluted the departed soul, where the body was brought coincidcntally when they were present.
7. According to another report, a sub-Inspector who was injured on duty on August 5., near Hanumanganj, died today at a local nursing home but for him also, not even single word of condolence was expressed by the top brass of U.P. police, who were more intent on pleasing the Chief Minister.
8. Over thousands of the citizens of Allahabad had to face trouble for more than an hour in the evening when the police cordoned off all the crossings from High Court to Balson crossing. Many missed trains, many were denied medical treatment and many had to face the wrath of the police when they tried to cross the road, much before the passing of the Chief Minister's convoy. Many returned back losing patience at the long wait.
9. However, the public and the police did not fail to pass sarcastic comments on the Chief Minister for the unusual tight security. One policeman at a crossing while stopping a journalist said "see, she is the most privileged person because Atalji has chosen her from among many. Even Kalyan Singh was sacrificed for her, so you have to bear with it."
10. One Mr. S. N. Singh, General Secretary of the Samajwadi Party, City Unit said these kinds of things never happened before. A number of P.S.'s and C.M.'s have visited this town but what kind of a CM. is this, who has forced trouble on the people.
11. At the Circuit House crossing of Mrs. Gandhi's statue, the police had to use mild force to disperse the Youth Congress activists.
2. Apart from it, I after finishing my Court and office work on 22-8-97 (Friday), was going to my son's residence situate at Katra, 17/13, Kutchery Road, Allahabad. As usual, I went to Nyaya Marg Chauraha before Bahuguna Market. I found the road was completely closed. A large number of security personnel were guarding the crossing in order to ensure that no vehicle or individual crosses the road. On enquiry, the officials simply replied that they have been ordered to do so on the basis of the order received from above. Failing to cross the road, I returned and after that I could come near Lal Shahid Smarak Memorial Park. There also, 1 saw the same thing and received the same report. Thereafter, I went to crossing near the Public Service Commission building and wanted to cross the road. But 1 had to meet the same fate. It was around 5.15 P.M. or so. Ultimately, I had to stay upto near 6 P.M. Thereafter, Hon'ble the Chief Minister passed and it became possible to cross the road.
3. It is important to note that all along I was in the car displaying the fact that I am a Judge of the High Court, Allahabad. National flag was also flowing on my car.
4. It appears that the local authorities were working on the basis of some order received from higher authorities, including the State Government and that is why they would be unable to flout the rule of law. Ultimately, the road for going to Katra and other parts of the city was completely blocked and not even a single Chauraha was left open, from which I could pass and go to Katra as desired. It seems that prima facie, it amounts to be a contempt of Court and flagrant violation of the rule of law, which the State has vouchsafed to maintain.
5. It has become essential to enquire into the matter.
6. I, therefore, suo motu take cognizance of the matter and it is ordered that a notice shall be issued to :-
(1) State of U.P.,
(2) Principal Home Secretary;
(3) I.G., Allahabad Zone, Allahabad;
(4) Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad;
(5) S.S.P., Allahabad and
(6) S.P. City, Allahabad.
to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for violating the civil rights, not only of ordinary citizens of India but also the authorities like High Court Judges. They are directed to file their affidavits by 17-9-97.
7. List for further orders on 19-9-97.
2. On reply to the notice, the respondents have filed their replies. On behalf of respondent No. 1, State of U.P., Sri R. P. Fuloria, posted as Under Secretary, Home, Govt. of U. P., Lucknow has said that certain guidelines and rules with regard to the arrangements to be made during the Hon'ble Ministers' travel by road, have been framed by the State of U.P. The State of U.P. has the highest respects and regards for the Hon'ble Court and also wants that minimum inconvenience be caused to the general public while travelling arrangements are being made for V.V.I.P. visit. The Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of U. P. has issued directions to all the District authorities so that minimum inconvenience is caused to the general public. (Annexure 2 to the affidavit). The Director General of Police, has already issued certain guidelines (Annexure 3 to the affidavit) that the Chief Minister of U. P. has also observed that during his visit, traffic be stopped for about 3 or 4 minutes only. (Annexure 4 to the affidavit).
3. Sri Rajeeva Ratna Shan, respondent No. 2, the Principal Secretary, Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P., Lucknow in his counter affidavit in para 3 has observed as follows :-
that at the very outset the deponent expresses his most sincere regrets for the inconvenience experienced by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S.N. Tripathi as a result of the traffic arrangements made by the local administration to ensure the safety and security of then Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati during her visit to Allahabad on 22-8-97.
The deponent has not flouted any order or the rule of law nor has he violated the civil rights of any citizen knowingly.
The deponent has also not done anything in contravention of any order or direction of the Hon'ble Court nor has he done anything to lower the authority or dignity of the Court or to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding. He is not accused of obstructing the administration of justice in any manner.
The deponent being a responsible Government Servant has had the highest respect and regard for this Hon'ble Court and its illustrious Judges. He could never ever think of causing any inconvenience to them much less commit contempt. He, however, tenders his unqualified apology and prays that the notice issued in the above case be discharged.
The factual position on the point raised in the petition has already been explained to the Hon'ble High Court by Sri V. K. Sharma, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in his affidavit as O.P. No. 4. It is further stated that the State Govt. did not issue any special order regarding traffic arrangements in Allahabad on the occasion of visit of then Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati on August 22, 1997.
The deponent once again expresses his regrets and tenders his unqualified apology for the inconvenience experienced by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S.N. Tripathi in the evening of 22-8-97 while proceeding from this Hon'ble Court to his son's residence.
4. Respondent No. 3, Sri Jitendra Kumar, I.G. Police, Allahabad Zone in his long counter affidavit has said as follows :-
At the very outset, the deponent expresses his most sincere regrets for the inconvenience experienced by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S.N. Tripathi as a result of the traffic arrangements made by the local administration to ensure the safety and security of the Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati during her last visit to the city on 22-8-1997. The deponent has not flouted any order or the rule of law nor has he violated the civil rights of any citizen knowingly. The deponent has also not acted in contravention of any order or direction of the Hon'ble Court nor has he done anything to lower the authority or dignity of the Court or to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding. He is not accused of obstructing the administration of justice in any manner. The deponent being a responsible Government Servant, has had the highest respects and regards for this Hon'ble Court and its illustrious Judges. He could never even think of causing any inconvenience to them, much less commit its contempt. He, however, tenders his unqualified apologies and prays that the notice issued in the above noted case be discharged.
While planning the traffic arrangements in connection with the visit of the Chief Minister on 22-8-1997, it was considered desirable to make her entry route into the town through the new Cantonment via Karriappa Road-Akbar Road-Ashok Road and Thornhill Road. This was specially done with a view to bypass the precincts of the High Court completely and to leave it undisturbed. The visit of high political and other dignitaries to the town necessarily places a heavy responsibility over the administration as to their safety and security, particularly in the context of the prevailing conditions and present day realities.
While making the traffic arrangements in every case a caution is taken to minimise the inconvenience to the public at large and to ensure that the movement of the Hon'ble Judges is not hampered.
There are clear administrative instructions not to check and obstruct the movement of persons proceeding to Hospitals or for any important and urgent work. Fresh instructions have been issued with regard to the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and other Judges that their movement shall not be checked and hampered. This exercise was faithfully followed during the last visit of His Excellency the Governor to the town on 10-9-1997. However, further measures to check the inconvenience that might be experienced by the public at large due to the visit of High dignitaries are under study.
On 22-8-1997, the administration lost two of its loyal and efficient policemen. They both met their unfortunate end due to road accident. S. I. Sri D. N. Singh had met with an accident earlier and had been admitted to the Swaroop Rani Hospital attached to Mod Lal Nehru Medical'' College. With a view to provide better medical care and attention, the administration got him shifted to Raj Nursing Home, a private Hospital of repute, where he received specialised medical treatment under the care of skilled medical men. His entire medical bills were paid from the State Amenaties Fund and police personnel stood by him in constant attendance to render all kinds of assistance. He was given blood transfusion with the help of blood donated by a local policeman. The Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General, District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police (City) and Additional District Magistrate visited him in the hospital on several occasions.
Constables Sri Shyam Lal and Sri Om Prakash met with an accident on 22-8-1997, which proved fatal to Sri Shyam Lal. Both the injured were taken to Swarup Rani Hospital soon after the accident and as soon as the news of the accident was flashed on the police wireless net work, the Circle Officer, City and Police Inspector, Kotwali rushed to the Hospital and rendered all kinds of assistance to them. They arranged blood of the matching group, which was donated by a policeman for Sri Shyam Lal Tewari. Unfortunately despite all efforts, his life could not be saved.
Their dead bodies were sent to their native villages by the local administration in official vehicles under the charge of responsible police officers. Provision was also made to pay for their funeral expenses on behalf of the administration.
Their dead bodies were brought to the police lines with full honour and a condolance meeting was held to pay tributes to them in the presence of the Superintendent of Police R.I., Police Lines and other police officers. Wreaths were placed on their dead bodies on behalf of the Director General Police and other Senior Officers followed by a parting guard of honour.
The administration is fully aware of its duties and responsibilities towards its employees, particularly those receiving injuries or meeting their end while in pursuant of their official duties and functions.
5. Sri V.K. Sharma, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, respondent No. 4 has replied in the same vein. Additionally he said that while planning the traffic arrangements in connection with the visit of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 22-8-97, it was considered desirable to make her entry route into the town through the new Cantonment via Carriappa Road-Akbar Road-Ashok Road and Thornhill Road. This was specially done with a view to by-pass the precincts of the High Court completely and to leave it undisturbed. All other allegations are the same as noted above.
6. Sri M.A. Ganpati, respondent No. 5, S.S.P., Allahabad has also replied in the same vein and has expressed his regrets.
7. Respondent No. 6, S.P. City Sri Ramanand has also replied to the same vein as done by the I.G. of police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad, respondent No. 3.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at stretch and gone through the record.
9. In this case, two major things are involved. The rights and privileges of a High Court Judge and the rights and privileges of a common man. The notice was issued to the respondent expressing displeasure caused to me as a High Court Judge as well as an Indian citizen and to the public at large, who were deprived of their valuable rights enshrined by the Constitution under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The allegations regarding the inconvenience caused to both these persons (Judge and the common man) have/not been denied, rather admitted. As regards the inconvenience caused to the Judge, all the respondents have expressed their regrets and have apologised. But as regards the comman man, there is nothing on the record. None has any drop of tear for the common man.
10. Along with the affidavit of Sri R.P. Fuloria, Under Secretary, Home, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, a copy of the rules for protection of the Hon'ble Chief Ministers and Hon'ble Ministers of States, have been filed as Annexure I. Under the heading Visits to the Districts in U.P., Sub-rule (7) has been relied upon, which provides for arrangement of a shadow to be made by the S.S.P., for personal protection of Hon'ble Minister. Under heading V-Arrangements during Journeys by Road reads as follows :-
(15) When an Hon'ble Minister travels by road his shadow will accompany him in the same vehicle in which he is travelling. The Superintendent of Police concerned should make such police arrangements along the route as he considers necessary. Unless there are special reasons, an armed guard escort need not follow the Hon'ble Minister's car. The arrangements along the route should be unostentatious and no restrictions should be imposed, as far as practicable, on ordinary traffic.
Annexure II is the Govt. Order dated 28th March, 1988 i.e. after the incident in question, sent by the Principal Secretary Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow to all the District Magistrates and S.S.P.H./SPs, home (Police) Section 4, which is is follows :-
Sub :- Traffic Arragements during VVlPs visits need to reduce inconvenience to the general Public.
It has been observed that traffic during visits of VVlPs is held up for unduly long duration resulting in avoidabel inconvenience to the road users. Keeping this fact in mind instructions have been issued in past by appropriate authorities from time to time which are summed up as of lows for necessary reference :-
...The arrangements of the route should be unostentatious and no restriction should be imposed on ordinary traffic.
The necessity for issuing of such an order arose on account of the pendency of the present case, it seems. Relying upon the earlier order supra, Annexure I, stress has been laid in these words :-
...The arrangements of the route should be unostentatious and no restriction should be imposed on ordinary traffic.
Use of Loudspeaker etc. noise causing instruments has been prohibited. Under the heading it has been specifically provided that traffic should for only 3 to 5 minutes so that minimum traffic restrictions are imposed during the visit of Hon'ble Chief Minister and His Highness, the Governor. Para 2 (a) and (b) is as under:-
(a) Instead of stopping the traffic only at the instcrsections, the traffic policemen should divert the traffic along alternative route in case the diversion route is available, it may be as far as possible, after brief period which should not exceed 2-3 minutes in normal circumstances."
(b) In cities where a network of roads is available, the stoppage has to be rationalised in a phased and staggered manner. Traffic in areas nearer to the point of departure, needs to be closed first and in other areas somewhat later, as per the progress of the motorcade.
Annexure III is the Radiogram dated 12-7-1997 underlining the importance of causing less and less noise and restrictions during the journey of Hon'ble Chief-Ministers and others. Similarly, Radiogram, dated 26-10-1997 Annexure 4 provides that Hon'ble the Chief Minister of U.P. has desired that during his visit, traffic be stopped for about 3 to 5 minutes only in keeping in view the local conditions so that minimum traffic restrictions are imposed. Thus by the issue of these aforesaid orders, the Govt. has tried to mollify the inconvenience and anguish caused to the common man. Had these instructions been issued earlier, a lot of disgust and inconvenience caused to the constitutional authorities like High Court Judges, as well as common men, could have been obviated and perhaps there would have been no anxiety for this Court to initiate those proceedings in question. The local authorities had lost all sense of proportions white providing unwarranted protection to only the Chief Minsiter, irrespective of any inconvenience caused to other sections of the society and administration.
11. The route chosen by the local authorities for the passage of Hon'ble the Chief Minister Ms. Mayawal, at her visit to Allahabad on 22-8-1997, was in fact, the spinal cord of Allahabad. That route from K.P. College ground to Circuit House, in fact, divides the city of Allahabad into two parts, north and south. On the northern side lie prestigious institutions like University of Allahabad (once Oxford of the East), most important market Katra, the Distt. Hospital known as Sir T.B. Sapru Hospital, T.B. Hospital, Railway Stations, like Prayag and Pahphamau Rasoolabad Ghat of Gangi, where the dead bodies are burnt, Kamla Nehru Hospital, Distt. Courts etc. It is also important to note that the important trains like Nauchandi Express, which connect Allahabad with the northern and north western parts of India, including Lucknow, Delhi etc., leave Prayag railway Station around 5 p.m. People of the northern and western zones of this State, after doing their business in the day time at Alld. leave by this prestigious train Nau Chandi Express from their homeward journey. On the southern side of the spinal cord of the city are located, the High Court Office of the A.G.U.P., Office of the Board of Revenue, Office of Director of Education, Main Railway Station, Allahabad AIRport Bamrauli, prestigeous Hospital, like Duffrin Hospital, Main Market Chowk, Medical College etc. This way even a few minutes blockade of the passage causes a lot of inconvenience to the public at large, specially when the office hours close and workers and officers try to go back to their houses after doing their duties at various places. The total distance from K.P. College Ground to the Circuit Houses comes to 5-6 Kms. There is no dispute that the caravan of vehicles following the vehicle of Hon'ble the Chief Minister is always well armed in order to provide protection to the high dignatory. They are fully armed with wireless sets Walkie-Talkie etc. Therefore, these gadgats of communications are available to the security personnel always on duty. Hence it is difficult to think that it is essential for providing any protection to the High dignitaries that the entire passage and routes connecting both the sides of the city, should be closed for hours together. It is not difficult to leave at least one or two crossing on this road may be at tail end open to connect these two wings of the city, as has been realized in the G.O.S. referred to above. I myself tried to cross the road on two or three crossing through which I could go towards the north of this road. But all the crossings had been blocked and no movement was permtted from north to south and vice-versa. This is something not thinkable in a democretic country like India. I personally saw at all these crossings, thousands of persons on both sides, standing and waiting indefinitely for the occasion when the Hon'ble Chief Minister could pass through. There was none to inform them as to for how much time more they would have to wait like this.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in an most important case Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR1978 SC 597 pages 620 and 621 has dealt with personal liberty in para 54. as follows :-
Freedom to move freely is carved out of personal liberty and, therefore, the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 excludes that attribute. In our view, this is not a correct approach. Both are independent fundamental rights, though there is overlapping. There is no question of one being carved out of another.
The right of movement (of course subject to certain reasonable restrictions) has been fairly recognised in this case and this right flows from Article 21 has also been enunciated. Any law or rule framed to curtail the liberty under Article 21 has to stand the test of justness, fairness and want of arbitrariness. Applying the principle in the case before us, it is clearly established and not denied by the opposite parties that the liberties of thousands of citizens enshringed under Article 21 of the Constitution were snatched away and they were made to stand for hours together before the caravan of Hon'ble Chief Minister passed away Such restrictions could not be said to be fair, just and reasonable, rather, they appear to be contrary to the common law, law and against the spirit of Article 21/22 of the Constitution. For that, no explanation has been given as to why not even a single crossing was opened to enable the general public to cross the road from north to south and vice-versa and to attend their duties either domestic or official, as they chose. Therefore the restriction was total and not under any circumstance, reasonable. Perhaps no care was taken that the citizens have a right of liberty and right of movement at any place at any time they chose proper. This difficulty was realised by the respondents, specially the State of U.P. at a later stage and afforts were made to be more liberal. So the Government Orders as noted above were issued. I do not want to make; bulky this judgment by quoting several rulings as done by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Ravi Kiran Jain before me because as observed earlier, the respondents do not dispute that the restrictions on the public rights and liberty were unreasonable and unfair and I can term it totally as one sided. The eyes were centered around the Hon'ble the Chief Minister and the citizens were treated as a small ants and mosquitoes, perhaps, in their consideration, not entitled to avail any liberty at all. The sum total of the freedom of movement has been summarised a! page 657 in para 113 in these words:-
Freedom of movement of the individual within or in leaving his own country, in travelling to other countries and in entering his own country is a vital human liberty, whether such movement is for the purpose of recreations, education, trade or employment or to escape from an environment in which his other liberties are suppressed or threatened. Moreover, in an interdependent world requiring for its future peace and progress an overgrowing measure of international understanding, it is desirable "to facilitate individual contacts between people and to remove all unjustifiable restraints on their movements which may hamper such contacts.
13. It is also apparent that the procedure or restrictions imposed on that date cannot be said to be "established by law". Procedural safeguards are the indispensible essence of liberty (para 119) at 658. The restriction should not negative the rights in an arbitrary and opression forms. In para 136, it. was observed :-
To my mind, locomotion is. in some situations necessarily involved in the exercise of the specified fundamental rights as an associated or integrated rights.
14. In the two relevant judgments of this Court reported in AIR 1994 Allahabad 10: (1993 All LJ 1334) in Re : Scope and Extent of applicability of Flag Code, etc. a Division Bench of this Court recognised the rights of the Judges of this Court to flow national flags on their cars and it was considered necessary to maintain the honour and independence of judiciary.
15. Similarly, in Red Light on the Cars of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court v. Stale AIR 1993 All 211 : (1993 All LJ 732), a Division Bench of this Court found that the use of red light at the top of the vehicle of the High Court Judges, was essential and they were entitled to use the same as other high dignitaries were entitled to and are exercising. The idea was not to stop the vehicles of Hon'ble Judges of this Court amounts to detaining them and any such detention was found to be showing disrespect to them, amounting to contempt. The vehicle of a Hon'ble Judge of a Court cannot be stopped except under some special circumstances.
16. Taking the totality of the legal position into consideration, I find that the respondents ruthlessly violated the rights available to citizens and even non-citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution, read with Article 19 by totally stopping the passage on the road in question without any proper justification and without any care, amounting to disrespect and disregard of the citizens's rights and also showing contempt towards a high dignitary, like High Court Judge, which per se amounts to contempt. A Judge apart from being a high constitutional dignitary, is also an ordinary citizen as well. So to take away his rights available under Article 21/22 of the Constitution, was totally arbitrary and| disregardful.
17. As major questions of fact raised in the notice have not been denied, rather admitted, I find that the act of the respondents cannot be justified on any consideration of law and justice. This conduct of total stoppage on routes amounts to total negation of rights available under the Constitution to ordinary citizens of India as well as high dignitary, like High Court Judge.
18. Mere expression of apology cannot meet the harm caused by the respondents by violating the Constitution intentionally and knowingly. So, they deserve some punishment.
19. As steps have been taken after the issue of notice by the State and other respondens, to do away with the rigour faced by the general public as well as constitutional authorities like High Court Judges, I find that the respondents should be punished and ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in all. They are punished accordingly. Initially the amount of fine should be recovered from the State of U.R, but it will be open to the State of U.P. to fix the responsibility of the other respondents, who tried to overact and flout any order by violating the rights available under the Constitution to the ordinary people as well as constitutional authorities like High Court Judges and after fixing the responsibility, the State of Uttar Pradesh may recover the amount from the individual respondents. The guidelines contained in Annexure II to the counter affidavit of Sri R.P. Fuloria on behalf of State of U.R, read with the order dated 28th March, 1998 (G.O. of the State Govt.) and subsequent Radiograms (Annexures 3 and 4) are sufficient if they are complied with reasonably and honestly by the respondents. I would like to add that there should be sufficient advance publication of the measures taken by the State Govt. or likely to be taken in order to provide security to the V.V. I.Ps., including Hon'ble the Chief Minister, Hon'ble the Prime Minister, His Excellency the Governor, President and Vice-President and other important dignitaries, including the High Court Judges and Supreme Court Judges. So that the public must know in advance either through papers, radio T.V. etc. that such and such road was likely to be reserved for such V.I.Ps. specifically for such and such time only informing that crossing Nos. XYZ will remain open in order to enable the public and other constitutional dignitaries to cross the road.
20. The respondents shall further ensure that minimum inconvenience is caused to the public by their minimum detention, permissible, which according to the State itself, should not be more than 3 or 4 minutes at a stretch. There should not be a blanket bar or obstruction to cross the road at all.
21. After the fine is recovered, the same shall be deposited in the account of the High Court Legal Aid Committee at Allahabad, to be utilized for the cause of the general public. I further direct that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as a token of appreciation, shall be paid to the Amicus Cuerie Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel, who has argued the case very vehemently and assisted the Court in order to do proper justice with the case.
22. I am thankful to Sri Mehta, the learned State Counsel, without whose co-operation and assistance, it would not have been possible for me to do proper justice in this case.
