SC sets aside law allowing government bungalows to former UP CMs
New Delhi, May 7: The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a provision of a law that allowed government accommodation to former Uttar Pradesh Chief Ministers, terming it "arbitrary and discriminatory" as it violated the concept of equality.
A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi said once a Chief Minister demits office, there was nothing to distinguish him or her from a common man.
Setting aside the provision of the law passed by the Uttar Pradesh Assembly, the bench said such bungalows constitute "public property which by itself is scarce and meant for use of current holders of public offices".
The apex court struck down Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, as amended in 2016, allowing former Chief Ministers of the state to be entitled to allotment of government accommodation for their life time.
The amendment was introduced by then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav's government in 2016.
In its judgment, the top court said that "natural resources, public lands and 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," it added.
The bench said amended Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act recognised former holders of public office as a "special class of citizens", which is "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 bench added.
"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 categorise previous holders of public office as a special category of persons entitled to the benefit of special privileges," the judgment stated.
"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 Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 is ultra vires the Constitution of India as it transgresses the equality clause under Article 14. The writ petition in question, therefore, is allowed.
The top court order came on a plea by NGO Lok Prahari challenging amendments to the Uttar Pradesh legislation allowing former Chief Ministers of the state to continue occupying government bungalows.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-monopoly: Rahul Gandhi
New Delhi (PTI): Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Thursday asserted that he was not "anti-business" as being projected by the BJP but was "anti-monopoly" and "anti-creating oligopolies".
His remarks came a day after he penned an opinion piece in The Indian Express in which he said the original East India Company wound up over 150 years ago but the raw fear it then generated is back with a new breed of monopolists having taken its place.
Gandhi, however, had asserted that a "new deal for progressive Indian business is an idea whose time has come".
In a video posted on X on Thursday, Gandhi said, "I want to make something absolutely clear, I have been projected by my opponents in the BJP to be anti-business. I am not anti-business in the least, I am anti-monopoly, I am anti-creating oligopolies, I am anti-domination of business by one or 2 or 5 people."
"I started my career as a management consultant and I understand the type of things that are required for a business to succeed. So I just want to repeat, I am not anti-business, I am anti-monopoly," the former Congress chief said.
In his post accompanying the video, Gandhi said, "I am pro-Jobs, pro-Business, pro-Innovation, pro-Competition. I am anti-Monopoly."
"Our economy will thrive when there is free and fair space for all businesses," Gandhi asserted.
In his article, Gandhi had said India was silenced by the East India Company and it was silenced not by its business prowess, but by its chokehold.
The Company choked India by partnering with, bribing, and threatening more pliant maharajas and nawabs, he pointed out.
"It controlled our banking, bureaucratic, and information networks. We didn't lose our freedom to another nation; we lost it to a monopolistic corporation that ran a coercive apparatus," he said.
The original East India Company wound up over 150 years ago, but the raw fear it then generated is back, he claimed.
A new breed of monopolists has taken its place, amassing colossal wealth, even as India has become far more unequal and unfair for everybody else, Gandhi had said.
The BJP had slammed Gandhi for making "baseless accusations" against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and asked him to examine facts before jumping to conclusions.
Hitting back at the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the BJP wrote on X: "Another baseless accusation against the Modi government through the so-called 'match-fixing monopoly groups versus fair-play businesses' is simply misleading."
"Dear Baalak Buddhi, do not jump to conclusions without examining facts," the saffron party said in a veiled reference to Gandhi.
