LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 07-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 864 of 2016)
MAY  07,  2018
[RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 – s.4(3) (as inserted by the
2016 Amendment) – Under the provision,  former Chief Ministers
of the State were entitled to allotment of government accommodation
for their life time – Challenge to the validity of – Held: Present
petitioner had earlier approached Supreme Court u/Art.32 in Lok
Prahari vs. State of UP and Ors., challenging the validity of the
1997 Rules providing for allotment of govt. accommodation to
former Chief Ministers – Not only the said writ petition was
entertained but, the 1997 Rules were struck down –Insertion of
s.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 Supreme Court would require the curing of the invalidity found
by Supreme Court in the matter of allotment of government
accommodation to former Chief Ministers – The defect found earlier
persists – Impugned legislation, therefore, is an attempt to overreach
the judgment of Supreme Court in Lok Prahari – Natural resources,
public lands and the public goods like government bungalows/
official residence are public property that belongs to the people of
the country – 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 – s.4(3) is
ultra vires the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be
struck down – 2016 Amendment (UP Act No. 22 of 2016) – U.P Ex-
Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 – Uttar Pradesh
Ministers and State Legislature, Officers and Members Amenities
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990 – s.(1-A) – Uttar Pradesh Ministers
and State Legislature, Officers and Members Amenities Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1997 – s.4-A – Societies Registration Act, 1860 –
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 1076
1076
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1077
Constitution of India – Arts.14, 32, 162 and 366A – Doctrine of
Equality.
Constitution of India – Art.14 – Test of reasonable
classification – s.4(3) of the 1981 Act allowing retention of official
accommodation by former Chief Ministers of the State after they
had demitted office, if violates Art.14 – Held: s.4(3) creates 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 – Test of reasonable classification, therefore, has to
fail – s.4(3) of the 1981 Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India as
it transgresses the equality clause u/Art.14 – Uttar Pradesh Ministers
(Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 –
s.4(3).
Allowing the Writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The preamble to the Constitution of India
embodies, inter alia, the principles of equality and fraternity and
it is on the basis of these principles of equality and fraternity that
the Constitution recognizes only one single class of citizens with
one singular voice (vote) in the democratic process subject to
provisions made for backward classes, women, children, SC/ST,
minorities, etc. A special class of citizens, subject to the exception
noted above, is abhorrent to the constitutional ethos. The resolve
of ‘the People of India’ to have a republican form of Government
is a manifestation of the constitutional philosophy that does not
recognize any arbitrary sovereign power and domination of citizens
by the State. The republican liberty and the doctrine of equality
is the central feature of the Indian democracy. It is, therefore,
axiomatic that in a democratic republican government, public
servants entrusted with duties of public nature must act in a
manner that reflects that ultimate authority is vested in the
citizens and it is to the citizens that holders of all public offices
are eventually accountable. Such a situation would only be possible
within a framework of equality and when all privileges, rights and
benefits conferred on holders of public office are reasonable,
ra

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