Supreme Court asks ex-UP CMs to clear out of govt bungalows
BY MPost7 May 2018 11:46 PM IST
MPost8 May 2018 5:17 AM IST
New Delhi: Akhilesh Yadav, his father Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Mayawati are among those who stand to lose their right to live in palatial government bungalows with the Supreme Court on Monday cancelling changes to the law that enabled former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh to live in official homes for life.
In its order, the court said former UP chief ministers are not entitled to government bungalows as these are "public property that belongs to the people of the country".
A bench headed by 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.
"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 bench, which also comprised Justice R Banumathi said.
"The Chief Minister, once he/she demits the office, is at par with the common citizen, though by 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 observed.
The top court was hearing a petition filed by an NGO Lok Prahari challenging the amendments made by the erstwhile Akhilesh Yadav government to the 'UP Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981'.
The court, in its 29-page order, said once such persons demit public office held by them, there is nothing to distinguish them from the common man.
The apex court also said it was a legislative exercise based on irrelevant and legally unacceptable considerations, unsupported by any constitutional sanctity.
The Uttar Pradesh government said the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution was not a direct infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
The apex court did not accept the submission that the power to issue writ (direction) should only be exercised in cases relating to violation of fundamental rights of citizens and said that after the advent of PIL jurisdiction, the court could deal with a plethora of issues concerning common citizens.
The court had on April 19 reserved its verdict in the matter.
The apex court had sought the UP government's response in November 2016, after the plea claimed that state government has sought to skirt the Supreme Court verdict of August 1, 2016, by amending the law.
In that verdict, the apex court had held that the practice of allotting government bungalows to former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh was bad in law and they should hand over their possession in two months.
It had also said the state government should recover appropriate rent from the occupants of these bungalows for the period of their "unauthorised occupation".
The former chief ministers were allowed to keep the bungalows despite a 1981 law by the Congress government of VP Singh making it necessary for chief ministers to exit within 15 days of leaving office.
Next Story