{"id":195837,"date":"2018-05-07T11:08:13","date_gmt":"2018-05-07T05:38:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=195837"},"modified":"2018-08-01T15:01:09","modified_gmt":"2018-08-01T09:31:09","slug":"breakingformer-chief-ministers-not-entitled-to-govt-accommodation-up-law-unconstitutional-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/07\/breakingformer-chief-ministers-not-entitled-to-govt-accommodation-up-law-unconstitutional-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Former Chief Ministers not entitled to Govt. Accommodation; UP Law unconstitutional: SC [Full Report]"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: Striking down Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, as amended in 2016, the bench of Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ held:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

State of Uttar Pradesh had argued before the Court that the infringement of the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a far cry as there is an intelligible differentia to justify a separate and exclusive treatment to former Chief Ministers who form a class of their own.<\/p>\n

The Court, however, held that the allocation of government bungalows to constitutional functionaries enumerated in Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act after such functionaries demit public office(s) would be clearly subject to judicial review on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court said:<\/p>\n

\u201csuch bungalows constitute public property which by itself is scarce and meant for use of current holders of public offices.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Holding that Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act recognizing former holders of public office as a special class of citizens is arbitrary and discriminatory, the Court said:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cUndoubtedly, 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 categorize previous holders of public office as a special category of persons entitled to the benefit of special privileges.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Background of the case<\/strong>:<\/p>\n