NEW DELHI: Holding that occupying a constitution post in past cannot entitle a person to get residential accommodation by government, the
Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Chief Ministers could not be allotted bungalow after demitting office and they should be treated at par with common citizens.
In a scathing attack on the current practice followed by some states in giving official accommodation to former CMs for their entire life, a bench of Justices
Ranjan Gogoi and
R Banumathi said that public office held by them earlier could not be a ground to treat them as a special class to shower special privileges on them even after demitting office.
“Natural resources, public lands and the public goods like government bungalows/official residence are public property that belongs to the people of the country. The Doctrine of Equality which emerges from the concepts of justice, fairness must guide the state in the distribution/allocation of the same. The Chief Minister, once he/she demits the office, is at par with the common citizen, though by virtue of the office held, he/she may be entitled to security and other protocols. But allotment of government bungalow, to be occupied during his/her lifetime, would not be guided by the constitutional principle of equality,” the bench said.
The court quashed Section 4(3) of UP Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which was brought in by state government in 2016 for allotting official bungalows to former CMs and termed it as arbitrary and violative of constitutional principle of equality. As per the section, a government residence shall be allotted to a former Chief Minister for his/her lifetime, on payment of such rent as may be determined from time to time by the estate department of the state.
The provision was introduced by the state to frustrate the top court's 2016 verdict in which it had directed six former CMs — Mayawati, Mulayam Singh, Rajnath Singh, Kalyan Singh, Ram Naresh Yadav and
ND Tiwari — to vacate their bungalows allotted by the government and had set aside a rule framed by the state for giving them accommodation. The bench said the impugned legislation can very well be construed to be an attempt to overreach the judgment of this court.
“Undoubtedly, Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act would have the effect of creating a separate class of citizens for conferment of benefits by way of distribution of public property on the basis of the previous public office held by them. Once such persons demit the public office earlier held by them, there is nothing to distinguish them from the common man. The public office held by them becomes a matter of history and, therefore, cannot form the basis of a reasonable classification to categorize previous holders of public office as a special category of persons entitled to the benefit of special privileges,” it said.
The Court’s verdict would have a wider ramification and rules and laws framed by other states for granting such facilities to former CMs would now become untenable. Expecting that its verdict would affect other states also, the bench had sought response from Centre and all state governments while the case was being heard. But only four states responded. While Tamil Nadu, Odisha had told the court that they did not provide such facilities to their ex CMs,
Bihar and
Assam told the bench that accommodation was provided as per the executive instructions.
Court’s verdict may not affect Centre’s policy of providing residential accommodation to former President, Vice President and PM as the apex court had in 1997 approved it. But the policy could be challenged in the view of the observations made by the apex court in its judgement.
“Not only that the legislation recognizing former holders of public office as a special class of citizens, viewed in the aforesaid context, would appear to be arbitrary and discriminatory thereby violating the equality clause. It is a legislative exercise based on irrelevant and legally unacceptable considerations, unsupported by any constitutional sanctity,” the court said.
“Consequently, we hold that Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act cannot pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be struck down. We, therefore, hold that the aforesaid Section 4(3) of the Actis ultra vires the Constitution of India as it transgresses the equality clause under Article 14,” it said. The writ petition in question, therefore, is allowed.
