State bans use of sirens during VIP movement: DGP issues strict order
The order, issued on Sunday, states that the use of sirens not only creates unnecessary disturbance on public roads but also potentially exposes the route of VIPs to unauthorized individuals, thereby increasing the risk to their security. Considering this, the DGP has directed that sirens must not be used for VIP convoys or movement.
The directive also highlights that sudden use of sirens on public roads can inconvenience other motorists and may lead to accidents, especially when vehicles are forced to make abrupt movements to make way.
The order recommends that any urgent coordination during VIP travel should be conducted through wireless communication channels rather than sirens.
According to the guidelines laid down in the order, only emergency service vehicles such as ambulances, police vehicles, and fire brigades may use sirens, and only in genuine emergency situations. The DGP further emphasised that as per Supreme Court directives, no vehicle other than emergency services is permitted to use sirens.
Even police vehicles are restricted from using sirens unless responding to an emergency.
Violation of this rule will attract legal action under Section 190(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which could result in a fine along with up to three months of imprisonment.
This decisive step by the Karnataka Police aims to ensure safer roads, reduce noise pollution, and maintain the secrecy and security of VIP movements.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Insurance firm told to pay for vehicle damage after fatal crash despite overloading claim
Dehradun: The state consumer commission directed a public sector insurance company to compensate a Dehradun resident for damages to his commercial vehicle, which crashed in 2017, killing three passengers. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The insurer had denied the claim citing overloading, but the commission found no evidence to support the allegation. Surat Dass, who owned and insured the vehicle with United India Insurance Co Ltd (UIICL), under the ministry of finance, in July 2016, said it met with an accident on Jan 21, 2017, on the Lakhamanda–Nada road when a retaining wall collapsed, injuring several agricultural workers. Dass promptly reported the incident to the insurer by phone, and an FIR was filed at the revenue police chowki in Lakhamandal. After submitting all necessary documents to UIICL, Dass's claim remained unresolved. He then filed a complaint with the district consumer commission, which ruled in his favour. The insurer was ordered to pay Rs 64,000 for vehicle damage, Rs 30,000 for mental agony and litigation costs, and 9% annual interest from the date of filing the complaint. UIICL challenged the verdict in the state commission. The insurer's counsel said information from the tehsildar of Chakrata confirmed that 20 people, including the driver, were in the vehicle at the time, breaching both the insurance policy and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. "Therefore, the district commission's judgment is not in accordance with the law and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company in repudiating the claim," the counsel said. However, the state commission observed that the surveyor's report did not mention any overloading, nor did the investigating officer from the revenue police record the presence of more than 20 passengers. "The insurance company has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the fact that at the time of the accident, 20 persons were travelling in the insured vehicle," it said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The commission concluded that the amount awarded by the district commission was consistent with the surveyor's assessment of the loss. In several similar rulings, consumer forums have held that insurers cannot deny claims merely on allegations of policy violations unless substantiated by reliable and direct evidence.
News18
35 minutes ago
- News18
Supreme Court Quashes Age Fraud Case On Lakshya Sen
Last Updated: The Supreme Court dismissed an FIR against badminton star Lakshya Sen, his family, and coach for birth certificate forgery, citing lack of evidence and abuse of process. The Supreme Court quashed an FIR against national badminton star Lakshya Sen, his family members, and coach in a case of birth certificate forgery on Monday (July 28). A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar observed that the allegations against Sen had already been debunked by competent authorities, adding that the complaintant sought to reopen the query without any substantial fresh evidence. The court declared the continuation of criminal proceedings against Sen an abuse of the process. 'The appellants, particularly appellant 1 and 3, are sportspersons of national standing, having represented India in international badminton tournaments and having earned multiple accolades, including medals at the Commonwealth Games and BWF international events," the court said. 'To compel such individuals who have maintained an unblemished record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence,to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material would not subserve the ends of justice." Sen was said to have undergone bone ossification and dental tests at government-run hospitals including AIIMS, Delhi, in 2016 under an investigation by the Sports Authority of India (SAI). 'The findings of these tests supported the birth years as recorded in official documents. On that basis, the SAI closed the matter. The CVC, an independent oversight body, was also seized of the issue and recommended no disciplinary proceedings against D K Sen. These findings were accepted by the relevant authorities and have not been set aside or reopened," the bench said. The top court was hearing a plea against a Karnataka High Court order dated February 19 rejecting the petitions filed by Sen, his family members, and his coach. Complainant M G Nagaraj had alleged birth certificates of Sen and his brother Chirag Sen were forged and that their parents, Dhirendra and Nirmala Sen, and coach U Vimal Kumar, and an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association, were involved. The alleged forgery was intended to allow them to participate in age-restricted badminton tournaments and avail government benefits. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
36 minutes ago
- NDTV
Saying 'I Love You' Not Sex Harassment Without Proven Intent: Chhattisgarh High Court
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a youth accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, stating that merely saying "I love you" does not amount to sexual harassment unless clear sexual intent is established. A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay S Agarwal upheld the verdict of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the state government, observing that the prosecution failed to provide adequate evidence to prove either the accused's intent or the age of the victim. The case originated from the Kurud police station area of Dhamtari district, where a 15-year-old schoolgirl had alleged that while she was returning home, the accused saw her and said "I love you." She also claimed that the youth had harassed her earlier on multiple occasions. Based on her complaint, the police registered a case under sections 354D (stalking) and 509 (outraging the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, along with section 8 of the POCSO Act and section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. However, the trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence, leading the state government to challenge the acquittal in the High Court. During the hearing, the High Court noted that neither the testimony of the victim nor that of her friends demonstrated any sexual intent behind the accused's actions. The court further highlighted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was aware of the victim's caste, rendering the application of the SC/ST Act baseless. Justice Agarwal emphasised that an isolated instance of saying "I love you," without repeated contact or suggestive behaviour, does not fulfil the legal criteria for sexual harassment under the POCSO Act. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Attorney General for India vs Satish (2021), the court underscored that a sexual overture must be supported by clear intent for it to fall under the purview of sexual harassment as defined in Section 7 of the Act. The court also raised concerns over the failure to verify the victim's age and described the investigation as inadequate and careless. Concluding that there was no sufficient evidence to convict the youth, the High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal and dismissed the state's appeal.
