Life Long Facilities Like Govt. Bunglows Can't Be Granted to Ex-CMs: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rule [Read Judgment]

"Equating a serving minister who is a public servant, bound by the oath of office and another who was a Chief Minister, and may not even be a public servant, for the purpose of grant of residential accommodation is nothing but appropriation of state wealth for no reason other than having held a high elective office", the bench of Chief Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prakash Gupta said while deciding the case captioned "Milap Chand Dandia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr."

Background

The Petitioner, Milap Chand Dandia, through Advocates Vimal Chand Choudhary, Yogesh Tailor and S.S. Hora had challenged the constitutionality of Section 7BB and Section 11 of the Rajasthan Ministers Salaries Act, 2017 (the Act), which provides that former CMs will get a government residence, a car for their family members, telephone and a staff of 10 persons including a driver for the remainder of their lives. Further, Section 11(2) of the Act grants protection to allotments made to former chief ministers, who had served for less than a full tenure.

Arguments

The Petitioner submitted that "having regard to the egalitarian principle underlined by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, assuring rent free accommodation and other perks, in the form of 'freebies' would be distribution of largesse, not based on any rationale". It was contended that:

1. Articles 164(5), 195 and Entries 38 and 40 of List II of the Constitution provide for payment of salary and allowances only to the 'members' of legislatures or ministers.
2. State legislature can decide only the salary of the CM and other ministers under Article 164 of the Constitution and thus it does not have the prerogative to make provisions for residential accommodation.
3. Govt. bungalows constitute public property which are scarce and meant for the use of current holders of public offices. The questions relating to allocation of such property, therefore, are questions of public character and would be amenable to adjudication on the touchstone of reasonable classification as well as arbitrariness.
4. The impugned provisions fail the test of 'reasonableness' as laid down by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another, AIR 1978 SC 597, in as much as after demitting office, a CM becomes a common man and there is no intelligible differentia to justify separate and exclusive treatment to them.
5. Providing luxurious lifestyles and facilities to former CMs poses extra burden on the state exchequer, given the financially backwardness of the State of Rajasthan.
6. The impugned provisions are contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 1, wherein the court had held that retention of official accommodation by CMs after they had demitted office violates the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The State on the other hand, through Advocate General M.S. Singhvi, argued that it had the legislative competence to make provisions for residential accommodation and other allowances to former Chief Ministers.

It also submitted that CMs were distinct from holders of other kind of public office, who serve in administrative capacities and superannuate according to a previously prescribed norms. Thus there was an intelligible differentia to justify separate and exclusive treatment to former CMs. Reliance was placed on Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 444, wherein the Apex Court held that "certain holders of public office such as President, Vice President, Prime Minister, etc. stood on a different footing when it came to allotment of public property after completion of tenure".

Findings

Stating that the impugned provisions were "abhorrent to the principle of equality", the court held that the decision in Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 1 was decisive and binding.

The court said that the question of life time allotment of residential accommodation to former CMs did not arise since there was no intelligible differentia discernable between a citizen or other class of public servant to entitle the latter to favorable treatment, that too at the state's expense.

Reliance was also placed on the decision in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, to stress upon the importance of prevailing equality. "Equality before the law is one of the bedrock principles which the Indian Constitution recognizes. It is the basis for a democratic constitution, whereby "we the people" have given onto ourselves a written constitution, pledged to be governed by justice and are sworn to the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law. There is no parallel to the kind of privileges which former chief ministers of Rajasthan are entitled to through the impugned provisions. Article 18 abolishes titles and enjoins Indian citizens not to accept any foreign title or honour", the bench said.

The court also observed that even in a well off economy like the U.S., former presidents are provided only pensions and medical insurance and they are not entitled to receive rent-free accommodation, provision of electricity, free phones, etc. under the Former Presidents Act, 1958.

Based on the aforesaid grounds, the court held that Section 7BB and 11(2) of the Act are arbitrary, contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution and void. The court did not deem fit to interfere with the applicability of Section 11(1). Moreover, the court said that it was open to the State to grant the facility of one secretarial staff, or to sanction an amount to facilitate such hiring, for the same grade of employees.

Download the Judgment Here