Former CMs required to vacate government bungalows – Supreme Court

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

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

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -