When public service rides in luxury: What vehicles India’s top officials get at taxpayers’ expense

The Lokpal drew sharp criticism last week for issuing a tender to purchase seven BMW 3 Series 330Li M Sport sedans — each costing around ₹60–70 lakh on-road in Delhi — for its Chairperson and six Members. The total outlay of around ₹4–5 crore also included a seven-day training programme for drivers to familiarise them with the cars’ features.

The move sparked widespread outrage, with opposition politicians and commentators questioning why an anti-corruption watchdog needed a fleet of luxury German sedans when judges, ministers and senior civil servants typically use more modest vehicles. Critics argued that such conspicuous expenditure sent the wrong signal from an institution created to uphold integrity and austerity.

The Lokpal Secretariat reportedly defended the tender by citing parity with the benefits accorded to Supreme Court and High Court judges — a claim that only reignited the debate over the appropriate level of privilege for India’s public officials.

What vehicles are provided to India’s top office-holders?

Entitlements for official vehicles in India are rooted in a patchwork of legislation, service rules and government circulars, many of which date back decades. They vary by office, seniority and security status — yet they all draw from the same public purse.

President

As the ceremonial Head of State, the president receives the highest level of transport entitlement. The President’s Secretariat provides a state vehicle — always armoured and equipped to the highest safety standards — maintained at government expense.

The president also has access to a whole security convoy and, for travel outside Delhi, can use aircraft or helicopters arranged through the Indian Air Force’s Air Headquarters Communication Squadron. The President’s car has symbolic value, often used for state occasions such as Republic Day and official receptions, and its procurement is treated as a matter of national protocol rather than personal preference.

Prime Minister

The prime minister’s official conveyance is determined by the Special Protection Group (SPG) and the Prime Minister’s Office. The vehicle is armoured to withstand explosive and ballistic threats and is accompanied by a large security cavalcade. The prime minister also has access to official aircraft and helicopters for domestic and international travel, funded through the Cabinet Secretariat and the Ministry of Defence.

While the precise make and model are not publicly discussed for security reasons, these vehicles are selected primarily for safety, not luxury, although their specifications naturally make them among the most expensive maintained by the government.

Chief Justice of India and the higher judiciary

The Chief Justice of India (CJI), as head of the judiciary, is provided with an official car, chauffeur, and security cover commensurate with Z-plus category protection. Other Supreme Court judges and Chief Justices of High Courts receive government-maintained vehicles for official use.

These arrangements are administered by the Supreme Court Registry or the concerned state High Court, with costs borne by the exchequer. Although these are usually high-end sedans — reflecting both protocol and security — they are rarely comparable to the ultra-luxury segment that the Lokpal tender invoked.

Union ministers and state ministers

Under the Ministers (Allowances, Medical Treatment and other Privileges) Rules, 1957, each Union Minister is entitled to a “suitable motor car” provided by the government, along with a driver and fuel. State governments have parallel rules, such as the Haryana Ministers Allowances Rules 1972, permitting either a conveyance allowance or a state-provided vehicle maintained at government cost. The phrase “suitable car” is deliberately broad, allowing flexibility according to availability and protocol.

In practice, ministers use sedans or SUVs from state-owned fleets, often manufactured by Indian companies like Tata or Mahindra. Personal use is restricted and, when permitted, must be recorded or compensated.

Senior bureaucrats (IAS, IPS and others)

Senior civil servants, particularly those in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) or Indian Police Service (IPS), are allotted official vehicles with drivers for official duties. The type of vehicle depends on rank and posting.

In many states, the Finance Department fixes price ceilings: for instance, in Madhya Pradesh, District Collectors and Superintendents of Police may use cars priced under ₹10 lakh, while senior secretariat officers may be allowed vehicles up to ₹12 lakh, or more in the case of electric vehicles.

The cars’ maintenance and fuel expenses are paid by the government. At the central level, Secretaries to the Government of India receive official vehicles for use between residence and office, while lower ranks use a shared motor pool.

Other constitutional and statutory authorities

Offices such as the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Election Commission of India, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and Lokpal fall into a grey zone where privileges are determined through internal administrative orders. These offices are independent but rely on government-sanctioned budgets. In the absence of uniform guidelines, such bodies often model their facilities on those of the judiciary or the Cabinet Secretariat — a practice that, in the Lokpal’s case, has now been called into question.

When is a government vehicle justified, and when does it become excess?

The official rationale for providing vehicles to top functionaries is not difficult to understand. Ministers, judges and senior bureaucrats often work long hours, must travel securely, and require reliable transport for official engagements. A government car, maintained at public expense, ensures efficiency and security.

Yet public discomfort arises when the choice of vehicle exceeds what is necessary for official duty. When a government institution known for oversight or austerity procures luxury sedans costing tens of lakhs each, the distinction between service and privilege begins to blur. Transparency and prudence — not brand or status — ought to define such decisions.

Reeking of feudalism

India’s administrative culture still carries vestiges of the colonial and princely orders it inherited. When the public sees convoys of black cars, red beacons (until recently), and lavish entourages, the message often seems less about efficiency and more about hierarchy.

In a democracy that calls its officials “public servants,” it is disquieting when symbols of privilege overshadow the principle of service. The Lokpal controversy is not merely about BMWs; it is about perception — the image of authority insulated by luxury from the realities of those it governs.

Unless periodically reviewed and justified on grounds of security or necessity, such entitlements do indeed reek of feudalism. They blur the line between democratic responsibility and inherited privilege — a line that should, in a republic, remain sharply drawn.