Selectively Targeted, Many First Time MPs With Govt Accommodation Above Entitlement: AAP MP Raghav Chadha To Delhi High Court

Aam Aadmi Party MP Raghav Chadha on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court that he is selectively targeted in being evicted from the government bungalow allotted to him when there are other first time MPs as well with identical accommodation above their entitlement.

The submission was made by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi who appeared for Chadha before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani in the AAP leader’s plea challenging the trial court order which granted nod and paved way for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to evict him from the government bungalow.

Singhvi submitted that Chadha’s suspension from Rajya Sabha has nothing to do with the cancellation of the government bungalow. He told court that while the cancellation happened in March, he was suspended only in July.

“You straightaway cancelled it [government accommodation]. It [trial court order] reeks of legal malice. I am still a member of Rajya Sabha. I am only suspended. Suspension has nothing to do with the house getting cancelled,” Singhvi responded as the court asked him about his suspension.

Furthermore, Singhvi submitted that it is neither a case of overstaying in the accommodation nor about fresh allotment. He said that it is a case where the bungalow was allotted after “exercise of full application of mind” by the Vice President in September last year, followed by its acceptance by Chadha.

Singhvi contended that what is being given after due application of mind by the Vice President cannot be taken away by the Chairman of House Committee.

Singhvi also said that jurisdictionally, government under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure does not include the legislature.

Furthermore, Singhvi said that presently out of the total 245 MPs, 115 have been granted accommodation above their entitlement but only he is sought to be evicted.

“What Vice President grants Chairman of the House Committee cannot take away. What the Principal grants the agent cannot take away. Article 14 stares in the face. The Public Premises Act will not apply where proceedings are ongoing in injunction which is taken away by the review,” Singhvi said.

On the other hand, ASG Vikramjit Banerjee opposed the petition and submitted that Chadha “cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time”.

Justice Bhambhani then asked Banerjee if the defendant in the suit, i.e. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, is a government under Section 80(1) of CPC or a public officer?

On this, Banerjee responded that the office of profit argument cannot be telescoped in a civil suit under Section 80 of CPC. He said that Singhvi’s argument is “based on a false analogy.”

“The interpretation they are pushing is wrong. Their submission in writing on Section 80(2) [of CPC] is contrary to what they are saying now,” the ASG said.

He added: “My learned friend is trying to make out that it is only for the government and not for a public officer. Even in his reply, he doesn’t shift an inch. Today goes completely against his own arguments.”

The matter will now be heard tomorrow for rebuttal submissions.

About the Case

Last week, Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik of Patiala House Courts vacated an interim order passed on April 18 directing the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to not dispossess Chadha from the government bungalow without due process of law.

The trial court held that Chadha has no vested right to continue to occupy the government bungalow after its allotment has been canceled and the privilege given to him has been withdrawn.

“Plaintiff (Raghav Chadha) cannot claim that he has an absolute right to continue to occupy the accommodation during his entire tenure as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The allotment of Government accommodation is only a privilege given to the plaintiff and he has no vested right to continue to occupy the same even after the cancellation of allotment,” the court had said.

The trial court judge was hearing a review application filed by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking recall of the interim order. The development ensued in a suit filed by Chadha against the Secretariat challenging a letter issued on March 03 cancelling the accommodation allotted to him.

While seeking recall of the interim order, the Secretariat had contended that the court granted the interim relief to Chadha without following the procedure contemplated under Section 80(2) of CPC. It was submitted that a hearing was required to be given to both sides before granting the leave under the provision.

Vacating the interim order, the court had rejected Chadha’s argument that the accommodation once made to a Member of Parliament cannot be canceled under any circumstances during the entire tenure of Member of Parliament.

Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat

(Inputs by Hannah M Varghese)