Perks, allowances given to former MPs and MLAs seem unreasonable: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court raised a question mark on Wednesday over benefits and pension for former MPs and MLAs, observing that these facilities on the face of it seem unreasonable and asked the Centre why this should not be scrapped.
A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer favoured framing of guidelines for extending allowances to former legislators and also sought a response from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretary generals.
The court stressed the need for guidelines while saying there was nothing wrong in providing some financial assistance to ensure former legislators do not live a life in penury after leaving office.
The court direction came on a petition filed by NGO Lok Prahari, seeking to do away with unnecessary allowances and perks to former lawmakers which is being paid from tax payers' money.
Advocate Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for the NGO, contended that pension is provided to government officials out of funds contributed by the employee and government but former law makers are paid pension out of the Consolidated Fund of India that they have not contributed to.
“Pension is given for the purpose of providing financial assistance to a retired person but 80% MPs are crorepatis and do not require pension. It is a largesse given to them and there are no guidelines and law to regulate facilities provided to them,“ she told the bench. She said the issue of providing pension to former MPs was discussed by the constituent assembly while framing the Constitution and was rejected. Jaiswal said that earlier former law makers were entitled for pension only after completing four years. The law was subsequently amended and an exMP became eligible to claim pension after being a member of the House even for a day.
Jaiswal said the apex court had in 1976 upheld the law to grant pension to former law makers but the many unreasonable amendments were since brought in through the Salary , Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act. She pleaded all changes in the Act after 1976 be quashed.The court, after a brief hearing, said issues raised by the petitioner needed examination and issued a notice to the Centre. It said facilities and allowances given to them must be reasonable and not arbitrary.
The petitioner approached the SC after the Allahabad HC dismissed its plea.
A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer favoured framing of guidelines for extending allowances to former legislators and also sought a response from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretary generals.
The court stressed the need for guidelines while saying there was nothing wrong in providing some financial assistance to ensure former legislators do not live a life in penury after leaving office.
The court direction came on a petition filed by NGO Lok Prahari, seeking to do away with unnecessary allowances and perks to former lawmakers which is being paid from tax payers' money.
Advocate Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for the NGO, contended that pension is provided to government officials out of funds contributed by the employee and government but former law makers are paid pension out of the Consolidated Fund of India that they have not contributed to.
“Pension is given for the purpose of providing financial assistance to a retired person but 80% MPs are crorepatis and do not require pension. It is a largesse given to them and there are no guidelines and law to regulate facilities provided to them,“ she told the bench. She said the issue of providing pension to former MPs was discussed by the constituent assembly while framing the Constitution and was rejected. Jaiswal said that earlier former law makers were entitled for pension only after completing four years. The law was subsequently amended and an exMP became eligible to claim pension after being a member of the House even for a day.
Jaiswal said the apex court had in 1976 upheld the law to grant pension to former law makers but the many unreasonable amendments were since brought in through the Salary , Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act. She pleaded all changes in the Act after 1976 be quashed.The court, after a brief hearing, said issues raised by the petitioner needed examination and issued a notice to the Centre. It said facilities and allowances given to them must be reasonable and not arbitrary.
The petitioner approached the SC after the Allahabad HC dismissed its plea.
