The politicians whosoever has developed this habit of enjoying benefits even after resigning from their office now has to keep one thing in mind that they had to control their hunger for power.As now this is not at all going to happen,they are not going to entail benefits after demitting the office.
Passing the judgement over the petition filed by NGO Lok Prahari that challenged the amendments made by the erstwhile Akhilesh Yadav government to the ‘UP Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981’ and also challenging another UP law of 2016 called (‘The Allotment of Houses under Control of the Estate Department Bill-2016’ to regulate the allotment of government accommodation to trusts, journalists, political parties, speaker and deputy speaker of legislative assembly, judicial officers and government officials) the Supreme Court today quashed the law passed by the Akhilesh Yadav led Samajwadi party Government that provided residential accomodations to former Chief Ministers of State.The Court in its order said that former CMs of the state are not entitled to government bungalows.
Supreme Court quashed the law passed by Uttar Pradesh govt granting permanent residential accommodation to former Chief Ministers of the state. The Court in its order said that Former CMs of the state are not entitled to government bungalows. pic.twitter.com/8VBRl4KKnY
— ANI (@ANI) May 7, 2018
The Supreme Court struck down Section 4(3) of the UP Ministers (Salaries, Allowances, and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 which was earlier granting these privileges to former Chief Ministers of the state.
The Court declared that after demitting from office the Minister is just like any other common man. There is no point for distinguishing between the two. The Court held that granting such type of permissions is a violation of Article 14.“Once a person demits public office, there is nothing to distinguish them from common man”, the Court stated while holding that the test of reasonable classification will fail.
This powerful judgment has been delivered by a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi. Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the amendment in the legislation was ultra vires to the Constitution since it transgresses the concept of equality under the Constitution. The bench said the amendment was “arbitrary, discriminatory” and violates the concept of equality.
“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,” they said
In 2016, when Supreme Court had struck down the rules formed by Samajwadi party Government for not granting the access then the Akhilesh Yadav Government finding a route to escape from it had amended the statute and believed it would pass the top court’s scrutiny since its objection was technical in nature. But to their surprise the Court has ordered vacating the bungalows and clearly defined that the uninterrupted hunger for power will not continue further
The bench also clearly mentioned that these bungalows are a public property that belongs to the people of the country. Now the former CM Mayawati had to leave her sprawling five-acre, 10-bedroom bungalow in Lucknow made of Rajasthan sandstone and pink marble. Akhilesh Yadav, his father Mulayam Singh Yadav, Rajnath Singh, Rajasthan Governor Kalyan Singh and ND Tiwari are among those who stand to lose their right to live in big government bungalows.
It is a good step taken by the Supreme Court for the state of Uttar Pradesh. It would be better if this would be implemented in other states also so that power hungry people can not take advantage of Government Resources. Although still the Court has turned down any such ruling expanded to include Prime Ministers and Presidents and said that it will decide only on the Uttar Pradesh law and the Centre and other States can ascertain the implications of the judgment on them if the law is struck down when Amicus Curiae Gopal Subramanium had suggested to expand its scope.