 reserved its verdict on a plea of the organization Lok Prahari which has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments made by Parliament to the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 19541.){kind=link}
Having heard all submissions, the Supreme Court bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Wednesday (March 7) reserved its verdict on a plea of the organization Lok Prahari which has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments made by Parliament to the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 19541.
The petitioner has challenged the validity of the provisions by which Parliament has legislated to provide for pension and for the grant of facilities to former members of Parliament.
On Wednesday Attorney General K K Venugopal said the competency of Parliament cannot be challenged. Parliament is a law-making institution. The parliamentarians were elected every five years that why they required travel expenses and pensions. The parliamentarian’s work is very hectic and they have to travel all over his constituency even after he is defeated in the election. So they were given pension and travel expenses.
The AG referred to a judgment of Justice Y V Chandrachud (father of sitting SC judge D Y Chandrachud) which said that this aspect had already been considered by the court and that writ petition was dismissed by this court saying that this subject is not to be challenged in court.
Lok Prahari general secretary S N Sukla submitted that the act of parliamentarians fixing pension for whole life is in violation of Article 14 of the constitution. The court said civil servants’ pension are on different footing, but parliamentarians contest elections.
Sukla then referred to the case of Subramanian Swamy vs CBI. The court said if tax payers’ money is paid than tell the voters not to elect them. The question is of crorepatis. I say several civil servants are crorepatis. I can’t stop pensions of all civil servants. These kinds of questions cannot be decided in court. Is in any other country these type of thinks debated in court?
Sukla said that the pension of parliamentarians are fixed without application of mind. The family of parliamentarians cannot be entitled to get pension as they have not rendered any service. At that the court pointed out that families of civil servants also do no related work, but get pension. The bench asked: “Can such policy be decided by the court? Are any fundamental rights being violated by it?
Sukla gave the example of allotment of bungalows to ex-ministers. The court said: “If such things happen, please challenge it. I am not stopping you.”
-India Legal Bureau