Supreme Court strikes down UP law on lifetime housing for ex-CMs

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday struck down as unconstitutional the law enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Assembly to provide government accommodation for former chief ministers, including Union home minister Rajnath Singh.

As a result of this order, besides Mr Rajnath Sin-gh, five other former chief ministers — Mayawati, Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh Yadav, N.D. Tiwari and Kalyan Singh — will have to vacate their government bungalows.

A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi quashed the amendment made to the law holding that it transgresses the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution. The bench allowed a PIL filed by NGO Lok Prahari challenging the law passed in Uttar Pradesh to provide for bungalows to former chief ministers. The petition pointed out that former CMs continued to occupy the houses as the state had enacted a law after the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions.

Writing the judgment, Justice Gogoi said natural resources, public land and public goods like government bungalows/official residences are public property that belongs to the people of the country.

The doctrine of equality, which emerges from the concepts of justice and fairness, must guide the State in distribution/allocation of the same. This is particularly so as such bungalows constitute public property, which by itself is scarce and meant for the use of current holders of public offices. The bench said a chief minister, once he/she demits office, is at par with the citizen, though by virtue of the office held, he/she may be entitled to security and other protocol. But allotment of government housing, to be occupied for his/her lifetime, would not be guided by the constitutional principle of equality.

It said: “The Constitution recognises 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 recognise any arbitrary sovereign power and domination of citizens by the State.”