LOK PRAHARI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S. N. SHUKLA & ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1050 · Decided: 16-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
LOK PRAHARI,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S. N. SHUKLA
& ANOTHER
v.
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 2018)
APRIL 16, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Salaries, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament
Act, 1954 –  ss.8A, 8AC, 6B(1), 6B(2) and 8AA – Amendments in the
1954 Act conferring the benefit of pension and other facilities to
ex-members of Parliament and their Associates (i.e. spouses/
companions/dependents) and right of free travel etc. to members of
Parliament and their Associates – Writ petition filed by appellant
before High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the
amendments, dismissed – On appeal, held: The fact that there are
express references in the Constitution for payment of pension to
certain constitutional functionaries and not to others, does not lead
to the conclusion that the Constitution by its silence prohibits the
payment of pension to those constitutional functionaries – Framers
of the Constitution believed that certain offices required a higher
degree of protection, having regard to the greater degree of
independence expected of the holders of their offices – Terms and
conditions subject to which a person is either appointed or elected
to occupy the constitutional office is a matter of policy choice –
Appropriate legislature would be the constitutionally designated
authority to determine those conditions – Expression “allowances”
of MPs occurring u/Entry 73 of List-I of the VIIth Schedule, is wide
enough to cover the payment of “pension” and the other benefits
covered by the impugned provisions to MPs or ex-MPs – Even
otherwise the authority of Parliament u/Entry 97 of List-I is wide
enough to cover the impugned legislation– Constitution of India –
Arts.14, 106 and Arts. 59(3), 158(3), 75(6), 164(5), 97, 18, 125(2),
221(2), 148(3), 322 and 324(5)– President’s Emoluments and
Pension Act, 1951– s.2– Vice President’s Pension Act, 1997– The
  [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1050
1050
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1051
Comptroller and Auditor-General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions
of Service) Act, 1971– Election Commission (Conditions of Service
of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 8A of the Salaries, Allowances and
Pensions of Members of Parliament Act, 1954 grants pensions
to (i) ex-MPs, and (ii) upon their death, the pension is given to
their respective spouses. Section 8AC provides family pension
to the spouse of such MPs on the death of the MP.  Section 8A as
originally enacted provided that an MP, to be eligible for Pension
must have completed four years of tenure in Parliament. But this
was done away with retrospective effect by the Amendment Act
No.9 of 2004. Section 6B(1) confers a right to all the MPs for
unlimited travel by train along with spouse/companion from any
place in India to any other place in India. Section 6B(2) provides
up to 8 air journeys in a year from the MP’s usual place of
residence to Delhi and back when Parliament is in Session and
also provides the spouse of the MP unlimited train travel by First
Class AC at any time during the year. Section 8AA confers a right
of travel facilities to the ex-MPs and their ASSOCIATES (i.e.
spouses/companions/dependents).  It provides for free AC-II Tier
pass for one person to accompany an ex-MP in all train journeys
and unlimited free travel by train along with spouse/companion
from any place in India to any other place in India. [Para 17]
[1060-D, E; 1061-A-B, C]
1.2  The submissions of the Appellants proceed on the wrong
assumption that certain provisions of the Constitution mandate
the payment of pension to persons who hold constitutional offices
like the Judges of this Court. A true and proper construction of
the text of the relevant provisions, do not mandate the payment
of pension. They only protect the pension if payable under the
relevant law applicable on the date of appointment of a person to
any one of those offices by declaring that such a condition could
not be altered to the detriment of a person subsequent to his
appointment.  However, the constitutional obligation to pay
pension to persons who hold such offices may arise by implication
having regard to the overall scheme of the Constitution relevant
to those offices. The need to secure the independence of the
LOK PRAHARI, THR. ITS GENERAL SECRETARY v. UNION
OF INDIA THR. ITS SECRE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.