Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Rlek V. State of Uttarakhand, 10th June, 2020 - Synopsis
Navoneel Karmakar 18 Jun 2020

On Tuesday the High Court of Uttarakhand gave a judgement by divulging a provision of Uttarakhand Former Chief Ministers Facility Act, 2019 which allows former chief ministers of the State to stay in government bungalows without market rent is ‘ultra virus’ . Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice R.C. Khulbe decided that a Chief Minister after the completion of his/ her term will be a common man and no extra special treatment will be given to them, other than security and other protocols. Ultra Virus means a term   Used in law to define an act that involves, but is performed without, legal authority. Its opposite is intra vires ("within the powers"), an act done under proper authority. Acts which are intra vires may equally be deemed "true" and those which are ultra vires may be dubbed "invalid".

The Court held that “One such persons demit the public office earlier held by them, there is nothing to distinguish them from the common man. The public office held by them earlier is  a matter of history, and cannot from the basis of a reasonable classification to categorise previous holders of public office as a special category of persons entitled to the benefit of special privileges”.

In a previous year another division bench of High Court of the same case Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Rlek V. State of Uttarakhand, the High Court directed the Ex Chief Ministers to pay the market rent for the bungalows which was assigned to them by the State Government. The Uttarakhand Government enacted the contested legislation in January of this year to exempt former CMs from paying rent on government accommodations.

The court has observed that the impugned Act serves no public purpose and merely gives the former chief ministers "unmerited largesse". The Court was of the opinion that, after the resignation of the office, the former Chief Ministers are at the same level as the common man and, therefore, any discrimination between them is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that “Conferment of the benefits, of concessional accommodation, and various other facilities being provided free of cost, on the former Chief Ministers is without any adequate determining principles, excessive and grossly disproportionate and must therefore be held to suffer from manifest arbitrariness and to fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution”

The Court rejected the justification given by the Government that the former Chief Ministers had rendered invaluable service as Chief Ministers and, taking into account their contribution and as a reward for the services rendered by them, had extended those benefits after they had resigned office.  In the course of the arguments, the Petitioner-Organization also argued that the Government of the State was not empowered to make laws for the "Ex-Chief Ministers". Rejecting this argument at the outset, the court stated that the law, while violating citizens' fundamental rights, draws strength from List II Entry 40 in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution-"State Ministers' Salaries and Allowances."

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com