2018 (5) TMI 1825 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 - allotment of government accommodation to former Chief Minister - conflict with the provisions of Section 4 of the 1981 Act - principles of equality - State of Uttar Pradesh has sought to defeat the writ petition by contending that the same being Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India a direct infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner must be established which is nowhere apparent even on a close scrutiny - maintainability of petition. Whether retention of official accommodation by the functionaries mentioned in Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act after they had demitted office violate the equality Clause guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Held that - While it is true that Article 32 of the Constitution is to be invoked for enforcement of the fundamental rights of a citizen or a non citizen, as may be, and there must be a violation or infringement thereof we have moved away from the theory of infringement of the fundamental rights of an individual citizen or non citizen to one of infringement of rights of a class. In fact, the above transformation is the foundation of what had developed as an independent and innovative stream of jurisprudence called Public Interest Litigation or class action - Along with the aforesaid shift in the judicial thinking there has been an equally important shift from the classical test (classification test) for the purpose of enquiry with regard to infringement of the equality Clause Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to, what may be termed, a more dynamic test of arbitrariness. 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. This is particularly so as such bungalows constitute public property which by itself is scarce and meant for use of current holders of public offices. The above is manifested by the institution of Section 4-A in the 1981 Act by the Amendment Act of 1997 (Act 8 of 1997). The questions relating to allocation of such property, therefore, undoubtedly, are questions of public character and, therefore, the same would be amenable for being adjudicated on the touchstone of reasonable classification as well as arbitrariness. The present Petitioner had earlier approached this Court Under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the 1997 Rules. Not only the said writ petition was entertained but the 1997 Rules were, in fact, struck down. In doing so, this Court had, inter alia, considered the validity of the 1997 Rules in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The insertion of Section 4(3) by the 2016 Amendment as a substantive provision of the statute when the 1997 Rules to the same effect were declared invalid by the Court would require the curing of the invalidity found by this Court in the matter of allotment of government accommodation to former Chief Ministers. 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 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. Not only that the legislation i.e. Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act recognizing former holders of public office as a special class of citizens, viewed in the aforesaid context, would appear to be 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. Thus, 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 - 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 - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, as amended in 2016.
2. Whether retention of official accommodation by former Chief Ministers violates the equality clause guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, as amended in 2016:

The writ petition challenges the validity of Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act, which was amended in 2016 to entitle former Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh to government accommodation for their lifetime. The Supreme Court had previously struck down the 1997 Rules that allowed similar provisions for ex-Chief Ministers, stating that they were in direct conflict with the 1981 Act. The Court reiterated that the 1981 Act did not provide for such accommodations and that the 1997 Rules, being executive instructions, could not override the statute.

2. Whether retention of official accommodation by former Chief Ministers violates the equality clause guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India:

The Court examined whether the amended Section 4(3) violated Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The Court emphasized that the Constitution embodies principles of equality and fraternity, recognizing only one class of citizens. It stated that public servants must act in a manner reflecting that ultimate authority is vested in the citizens, and privileges conferred on public office holders must be reasonable and proportionate.

The Court referenced various precedents, including the Seven Principles of Public Life and the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which abolished the privy purse and privileges of former rulers, to highlight that a classless society is a constitutional vision. The Court also cited cases like Victorian Granites and Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress to underline that state actions must serve the common good and be free from arbitrariness.

The Court noted that the allocation of government bungalows to former Chief Ministers constitutes public property meant for current officeholders. It stated that creating a separate class of citizens for such benefits based on previous public office is arbitrary and discriminatory, failing the test of reasonable classification and violating Article 14.

Conclusion:

The Court held that Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act, as amended in 2016, is ultra vires the Constitution of India as it transgresses the equality clause under Article 14. The provision was struck down, and the writ petition was allowed. The judgment underscores that former Chief Ministers, once they demit office, should be treated like ordinary citizens and not be entitled to special privileges like lifetime government accommodation.