Former CMs required to vacate government bungalows – Supreme Court

Must Read

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India &...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s...

Follow us

Supreme Court on Monday, 7th April has ruled that ex-Chief Ministers are not allowed to stay in government bungalows and the amended Uttar Pradesh (UP) state law [UP Ministers (salaries, allowances & miscellaneous provisions) Act, 2016] was declared, “a legislative exercise based on irrelevant and legally unacceptable considerations, unsupported by any constitutional sanctity.”

Facts of the case

Today’s Supreme Court ruling found its basis on the 2016 verdict given by a three judges Division Bench comprising of Justices A R Dave, N V Ramana and R Banumathi who had held that “the 1997 rules (Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997) so far as they are not in consonance with the provisions of the 1981 Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, are bad in law.” The Court further remarked, “the impugned 1997 rules give largesse only to former chief ministers without any element of reasonableness. In our opinion, the 1997 rules, which permit the former chief ministers to occupy government bungalows for life cannot be said to be valid.”

Based on a plea filed by a UP-based NGO Lok Prahari, the Supreme Court judgment on August 1, 2016, had directed the ex-Chief Ministers to vacate any government bungalow or any government accommodation after 15 days from the date on which his term comes to an end. After the 2016 verdict of the Apex Court, Akhilesh Yadav government made amendments to the 1981 Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act believing “it would pass the top court’s scrutiny since its objection was technical in nature.” The amended UP Ministers (salaries, allowances & miscellaneous provisions) Act, 2016 gave entitlement to five ex-chief ministers, Rajnath Singh, Rajasthan Governor Kalyan Singh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mayawati and ND Tiwari to keep their government bungalows.

Questions placed before the Court

The questions that came up during the hearing of the case was based on the legality of the Act, the benefits deemed fit for the position of former chief ministers and what they are entitled to.

  • Whether former chief ministers be allowed to avail the facility of government bungalows?
  • Whether the 2016 amendments passed by the UP government should be considered valid?
  • Whether similar provisions in other states are applicable?
  • Whether the facility given to former chief ministers was similar to the facilities available for Presidents, Prime Ministers and Vice Presidents?

Court verdict

Court-appointed amicus curiae Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium on Thursday, January 4, 2018, was presented with the questions that arose in this PIL. In his deposition advocate, Subramanium had suggested that “the said ministers who demitted office did not require public property.” He reiterated that the 2016 amendment to the UP law was “intended to overcome the top court’s August 2016 order of eviction of former chief ministers.” On the scope of the extension of the PIL to include other states, he proposed that the Supreme Court should hear the states concerned.

The two judges Division Bench comprising of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi held, “Section 4(3) of UP Ministers (salaries, allowances & miscellaneous provisions) Act, 2016 is unconstitutional. Such laws create a separate class. Once a public servant demits office there should be nothing to distinguish them from a common man.” The Court was clear on its contention that not only the amended law has no legal basis but further pointed out that “the Chief Minister, once they demit office, is at par with the common citizen, though by virtue of the office held, they may be entitled to security and other protocol. But the allotment of government bungalows, to be occupied during their lifetime, would not be guided by the constitutional principle of equality.”

Supreme Court’s decision and it’s impact

The largesse allowed to ex-Chief Ministers of any State should be in consonance with the principles of equality. Once a Chief Minister demits his position he is at par with a common citizen of the country and hence does not merit any special privileges in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once again the Court upheld the provisions of our Constitution and championed the cause of equality and justice.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -