( 1 ) IN this case the question involved is whether Honble Judges of this Court are entitled to use the National Flag on their vehicles. ( 2 ) ON 15-3-1993 we passed the following order. "the members of the Bar of this Court have brought to the notice of this court the Flag Code as well as the Warrant of Precedence issued by the Government of India and by the State of Uttar Pradesh, and they pointed out that in the Flag Code the Ministers and the Deputy Ministers of the State are under item 5 to clause 10. 4 and are provided the facility of using National Flag on their vehicles. The status of the Puisne Judges of the High Court, as per admitted position of the Government of India under Warrant of precedence is at par with the State Ministers in their Status, which is provided at item No. 20 of the Warrant of Precedence dated 10-3-73. Further, outside the area of their jurisdiction the position of the Puisne Judges of the High Court is equivalent and akin to the State Ministers of the State which position is stated at item No. 22. The position of the Chief Secretary in the Warrant of precedence is subsequent to the Judges and is at serial No. 25. The position of the Puisne Judges in the Warrant of Precedence - (Subsidiary) - issued by the State Government under notification No. 5333 / III-72 (1)-73 dated 30/09/1978 is placed at serial No. 19 in which category the Deputy Chairman, Vidhan Parishad and the State Ministers are placed subsequent to the Puisne Judges though in the same column and category. The position of the Deputy Ministers is at item No. 20 which comes subsequent to the Puisne Judges and the State Ministers. The position of the Chief Secretary is at serial No. 24. Apart from this the Advocate General is also included in the Warrant of Precedence who has been at serial No. 26. It would be worthwhile to notice that in the Flag Code, paragraph 10. 4 item No. 5 even the Deputy Ministers of the State are entitled for using the National Flag on their Cars. Apart from this the Advocate General is also included in the Warrant of Precedence who has been at serial No. 26. It would be worthwhile to notice that in the Flag Code, paragraph 10. 4 item No. 5 even the Deputy Ministers of the State are entitled for using the National Flag on their Cars. From what has been stated above, prima facie, we are of the opinion that it is a case which requires consideration by this Court and accordingly we direct the Registrar of this Court for registering this petition as a petition under the suo motu exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We consider it appropriate to issue notice to the Central Government and to the State Government for consideration of the matter regarding whether the Puisne Judges of the High Court can be allowed to be kept outside the arena of the Flag Code and whether they are entitled to carry the National Flag on their cars. Let the notices be served on the Senior Standing Counsel of Union Government, and the Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. who is present in the court and he has accepted the notice on behalf of the State of U. P. He prays for and is granted one months time for filing an affidavit dealing with the matter. The Senior Standing Counsel of the Central Government is also allowed one months time for filing the affidavit and the relevant materials in this connection. Apart from Registry of this Court, Shri Babu Ram Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel of the State of U. P. shall inform about this order to the Senior Standing Counsel of the Central Government. The notices be served at the Courts expense. Let the petition be listed before us on 19/04/1993. " ( 3 ) IN pursuance of this order counter affidavits have been filed by both State and Central Governments, and we have heard learned Chief Standing Counsel of the State Government and learned Senior Standing Counsel of the Central Government. We have also perused the Flag Code issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, which has been annexed to the counter affidavit of the Central Government. ( 4 ) THE relevant provision in the Flag Code with which we are concerned is Rule 10. 4 which states :-"10. 4. We have also perused the Flag Code issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, which has been annexed to the counter affidavit of the Central Government. ( 4 ) THE relevant provision in the Flag Code with which we are concerned is Rule 10. 4 which states :-"10. 4. Motor cars :- (a) The Privilege of flying the National Flag on motor cars is limited to the (1) President; (2) Vice-President; (3) Governors and Lieutenant Governors; (4) Heads of Indian Missions abroad in the countries to which they are accredited; (5) Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers; Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers of the Union; Chief Minister and other Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers of States; ministers of State and Deputy Ministers of Union Territories; chief Executive Councillor and other Executive Councillors, Delhi; (6) Speaker of the Lok Sabha; Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha; Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha; Chairman of Legislative Councils in States Speakers of Legislative Assemblies in State and Union Territories; Deputy Chairman of Legislative Councils in States; Deputy Speakers of Legislative Assemblies in States and Union Territories; Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Metropolitan Council in Delhi; (7) Chief Justice of India; Judges of Supreme Court; Chief Justice of High Courts. The dignitaries mentioned in clauses (5) to (7) may fly the National Flag on their cars, whenever they consider it necessary or advisable. " ( 5 ) THE above provision, to the extent that it omits Puisne Judges of the High Courts from the list of authorities entitled to carry the national flag on their vehicles, is in our opinion arbitrary. ( 6 ) IT may be noticed that even Deputy Ministers of the State Governments are included in the above list. In the Warrant of Precedence issued by the U. P. Government (vide notification No. 5333/3-72 (1) / 73 dated 30-9-1978) the position of Puisne Judges of the High Court is at serial No. 19 along with Ministers of State in the State Government, whereas Deputy Ministers of the U. P. Government are at serial No. 20. Thus it is evident that Deputy Ministers of the State Government are lower in the order of precedence as compared to the Puisne Judges of this Court. Thus it is evident that Deputy Ministers of the State Government are lower in the order of precedence as compared to the Puisne Judges of this Court. Hence it is wholly arbitrary to disentitle the Puisne Judges of this Court from using the national flag on their cars while providing that the Deputy Ministers, who are lower in the order of precedence to the Puisne Judges, shall use the national flags on their cars. ( 7 ) IN the Notification No. 33 Press / 79 dated 26-7-1979 the Central Government has issued the order of precedence in Supersession of previous notifications under which Puisne Judges of the High Courts are at serial No. 17 whereas Ministers of State of the State Government are at serial No. 18 and Deputy Ministers are at serial No. 19. This also shows that Puisne Judges of the High Court are higher in the order of the precedence, as compared to the Deputy Ministers of the State Government. ( 8 ) APART from the above, it is also to be noted that whereas under the Flag Code Chief Justices of the High Courts have been permitted to use the national flag on their cars, there is no such provision for Puisne Judges of the High Courts. This again is wholly arbitrary because Puisne Judges are not subordinate to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is only the first among equals. The only distinction between the Chief Justice and the Puisne Judges is that the Chief Justice is entitled under the Rules of the Court to allocate the jurisdiction of the judges, and he has some additional administrative powers but otherwise on the judicial side there is no distinction between the Chief justice and the Puisne Judges. Hence it is wholly arbitrary to deny the National Flag to the Puisne Judges while providing to the Chief Justice only. ( 9 ) IT may be mentioned that a Division Bench of this Court has held in AIR 1993 All 211 in Red Light on the cars of the Honble Judges of the High Court v. State that the Judges of this Court can use red light on their cars. The reasoning of this Court in the aforesaid judgment is that an Honble Judge of this Court is a Constitutional functionary and high dignatory and hence is entitled to use the red light on his car. The reasoning of this Court in the aforesaid judgment is that an Honble Judge of this Court is a Constitutional functionary and high dignatory and hence is entitled to use the red light on his car. It is obvious the red light is used only in the night and not in the day. However, a high dignatory is a high dignatory not only at night, he remains so in the day also. Hence if he can use the red light at night it follows that he can use the National Flag in the day time since the National Flag is the sign of a high dignatory in the daytime. ( 10 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the State Government the stand which has been taken is that it is the Central Government which can decide upon the matter, and the State Government through its letter dated 6-8-1993 (Annexure CA-3) has written to the Central Government in this connection. ( 11 ) AS regards, the counter affidavit of the Central Government it has been stated in para 7 thereof:-"the main purpose of flying the flag on a car is essentially to enable quick movement in the streets so that a traffic policeman may not hold up such a car. A flag on a car does not demonstrate the importance of a person inside the car. The list of those who are permitted to fly the National Flag on their motor cars is already large and it is not considered advisable to increase the number of these persons. The guiding principle has been one of restraint. In this connection, the following observations of the late Prime Minister, Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru are quite relevant :-"far too many people go about with Flags on their cars. The purpose of the Flag is essentially to enable quick movement in the streets so that a traffic policeman may not hold up such a car. The Flag on an automobile is not meant to demonstrate the importance of the person inside the car. I do not think it is necessary for even Cabinet Ministers always to have that Flag. They can use it whenever considered necessary from the point of view of traffic convenience. I noticed that in Washington often when I travelled in a car with President Eisenhower, there was no flag at all. I do not think it is necessary for even Cabinet Ministers always to have that Flag. They can use it whenever considered necessary from the point of view of traffic convenience. I noticed that in Washington often when I travelled in a car with President Eisenhower, there was no flag at all. We might, therefore, in practice limit the use of the Flag, and we should revise the list of those who are entitled to the use of the Flag in their Cars. I do not think it is necessary to extend this so-called privilege to Deputy Ministers. This does not mean any attempt to lessen the dignity of a Deputy Minister. It is solely meant to avoid this psychology of pomp and show which is not good from any point of view. " ( 12 ) IN our opinion the reasoning given in para 7 of the said counter affidavit is no good ground to deny the use of National Flag to the Honble Judges of this Court. In fact, if this reasoning is accepted then ministers should also not use National Flag on their cars, as the quotation of Pt. Nehru indicates. Pandit Nehru has clearly stated that Deputy Ministers should not carry the National Flag on their cars, but in fact the Deputy Ministers are always carrying the National Flag on their cars. Hence, in fact the quotation of Pandit Nehru given in para 7 cuts against the very argument in the said counter affidavit. It is not understandable how the carrying of National Flag on the cars of Honble Judges of this court will cause traffic inconvenience. This is a flimsy, specious and wholly untenable objection taken in the counter affidavit of the Central Government. ( 13 ) IN para 18 of the said counter affidavit it has been stated that there are many dignatories higher in rank than Deputy Ministers who have not been allowed use of the National Flag on their motor cars e. g. the Members of Planning Commission, Attorney General of India, Cabinet Secretary, Chief Election Commissioner, Auditor General of India etc. In our opinion this too is no good ground to deny the National Flag to the Puisne Judges for the use in their cars. It is not a question of rank alone which has to be taken into consideration while deciding the matter. In our opinion this too is no good ground to deny the National Flag to the Puisne Judges for the use in their cars. It is not a question of rank alone which has to be taken into consideration while deciding the matter. The nature of the work, the constitutional status, the historical background, etc. , have also to be seen. The Constitution envisages an independent judiciary. Cases of the highest public importance or involving high financial stakes come before the High Courts, and the Judges are expected to decide them impartially and without fear. The independence of judiciary requires that Honble Judges of the High Court must be given proper status. The Judges of the High Court get far less emoluments than many lawyers and other sections of society, and cases come before them involving crores of rupees. Hence, it is status which sustains them and enables them to carry out their duties independently and with integrity. Thus upkeep of status is an important matter in sustaining the independence and integrity of the Judges. ( 14 ) THE Judges of the High Court cannot be compared to the authorities mentioned in para 10 of the counter affidavit because while the Judges discharge sovereign functions the latter do not do so and at best it can be said that they assist in the discharge of sovereign functions. In this connection reference may be made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Review Petition No. 249 of 1992 in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (decided on 24-8-93) wherein it was observed"the failure to realize the distinction between the judicial service and the other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review petitioners. The judicial service is not service in the sense of employment. The judges are not employees. As members of the judiciary they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. Those who exercise the State power are the ministers, the legislators and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their decisions. The council of ministers or the political executive is different from the secretariate staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decision of the political executive. The parity is between the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges, and not between the Judges and the administrative executive. The council of ministers or the political executive is different from the secretariate staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decision of the political executive. The parity is between the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges, and not between the Judges and the administrative executive. "the Supreme Court further observed "under the Constitution, the judiciary is above administrative executive, and any attempt to place it on par with the administrative executive has to be discouraged. " ( 15 ) THE above observations make it clear that the Judges are superior in status to the authorities mentioned in para 10 of the counter affidavit, the order of precedence notwithstanding. In fact the order of precedence needs to be reconsidered in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court. ( 16 ) UNDER our Constitution the High Courts have an outstanding position. One whole chapter of the Constitution viz. , Part VI Chapter V consisting of Articles 214 to 231 deals with the High Court. The High Courts have power under Article 226 to issue prerogative writs, and also orders or directions which no British Court has. The High Courts have also power of superintendence over all Subordinate Courts and Tribunals vide Article 227. The High Courts are courts of Record and under Article 215 have power of punishing including for contempt. ( 17 ) EVEN before the enactment of the Constitution the High Court had an eminent position under the various Government of India Acts. The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Allahabad were set up by Letters Patent of the Crown over 125 years ago. Even since their creation the High Courts have held a prominent position in the country, and citizens look up to the High Courts for relief in case of executive arbitrariness or illegality. How, then, can the position of a High Court Judge be compared to that of the authorities mentioned in para 10 of the counter affidavit? ( 18 ) IT may also be mentioned that not only do the High Court Judges get a meagre salary, they are also expected to live a life of a recluse or a hermit. Now man is a social being, and everbody likes to socialize in the evening or on holidays with his fellowmen. ( 18 ) IT may also be mentioned that not only do the High Court Judges get a meagre salary, they are also expected to live a life of a recluse or a hermit. Now man is a social being, and everbody likes to socialize in the evening or on holidays with his fellowmen. But Judges are by convention expected to be unsocial, to stay at home as much as possible, and to comply with a host of self-imposed restrictions. Thus the life of a Judge is a very difficult life. On the one hand he gets a meagre salary and on the other hand he is expected to work like a horse and live like a hermit. The least, that which can be given to him is a status which can compensate for the sacrifices he has to make. ( 19 ) IN this connection reference may also be made to the letter dated 17-3-1880 of the Judicial Secretary and Legal Remembrancer of Government of U. P. to the Secretary, Government of India. The letter is as follows:from, Sri K. L. Sharma, Judicial Secretary and Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Padesh, Vidhan Bhawan, Lucknow. TO, The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Justice, South Block, New Delhi-110001 judicial (High Court) (sic) Section Dated March, 1990subject : Display of National Flag on Motor Cars inclusion of the Judges to the High Court in the list of dignitaries. ( 20 ) IT is regretable that despite this letter recommending that the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to use the National Flag on their cars, no action has been taken by the Central Government in this connection. The matter cannot be allowed to linger on indefinitely and hence we are issuing a mandamus to the respondents. ( 21 ) IN the result, since we are of the opinion that the omission to provide use of National Flag to the Honble Judges of this court on their cars is wholly arbitrary and consequently illegal, the petition is allowed. The High Court Judges will be deemed to be included in the list of authorities entitled to use the national flag on their cars. A mandamus is issued to the Registrar who is directed to get the National Flag affixed on the cars of the Honble Judges of this Court forthwith. The High Court Judges will be deemed to be included in the list of authorities entitled to use the national flag on their cars. A mandamus is issued to the Registrar who is directed to get the National Flag affixed on the cars of the Honble Judges of this Court forthwith. Respondents and other authorities are further directed not to creat any impediment in the use of National Flag on the cars of Honble Judges of this Court, and all concerned authorities and persons are strictly mandated for compliance with this order. ( 22 ) THE petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ( 23 ) LET a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, U. P. Government, Secretary, U. P. Government, Lucknow, Home Secretary, Government of india, New Delhi and Registrar of this Court and Additional Registrar at Lucknow for compliance of the mandamus issued above. ( 24 ) A copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the Registrar of all the High Courts in the country so that copy of the judgment may be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned for appropriate action. Petition allowed. .