Lok Prahari through Its General Secretary vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

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, rational and proportionate. [Paras 16-18][1088-C-F]

1.2 The allocation of government bungalows to

constitutional functionaries enumerated in Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act after such functionaries demit public office(s) would be clearly subject to judicial review on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is particularly so as such bungalows constitute public property which by itself is scarce and meant for use of current holders of public offices. The above is manifested by the institution of Section 4-A in the 1981 Act by the Amendment Act of 1997 (Act 8 of 1997). The questions relating to allocation of such property, therefore, undoubtedly, are questions of public character and, therefore, the same would be amenable for being adjudicated on the touchstone of reasonable classification as well as arbitrariness. The present petitioner had earlier approached Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the U.P Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997. Not only the said writ petition was entertained but the 1997 Rules were, in fact, struck down. In doing so, this Court had, inter alia, considered the validity of the 1997 Rules in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The insertion of Section 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 the 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. The impugned legislation, therefore, can very well be construed to be an attempt to overreach the judgment of Supreme Court. [Paras 36, 37][1097B-G]

1.3 Natural resources, public lands and the public goods like government bungalows/official residence are public property that belongs to the people of the country. The ‘Doctrine of Equality’ which emerges from the concepts of justice, fairness must guide the State in the distribution/allocation of the same. The 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. Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act would have the effect of creating 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. The public office held by them becomes a matter of history and, therefore, cannot form the basis of a reasonable classification to categorize previous holders of public office as a special category of persons entitled to the benefit of special privileges. The test of reasonable classification, therefore, has to fail. Not only that the legislation i.e. Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act recognizing former holders of public office as a special class of citizens, viewed in the aforesaid context, would appear to be arbitrary and discriminatory thereby violating the equality clause. It is a legislative exercise based on irrelevant and legally unacceptable considerations, unsupported by any constitutional sanctity. [Paras 38, 39][1097-G-H; 1098-A-D]

1.4 Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act cannot pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be struck down. Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India as it transgresses the equality clause under Article 14. [Para 40][1098-E]

Budhan Choudhry and others v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 191 : [1955] SCR 1045; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1974) 4 SCC 3 : [1974] 2 SCR 348; Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others (2017) 9 SCC 1 – followed.

Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2016)

8 SCC 389 : [2016] 4 SCR 1026; Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another (1998) 1 SCC 226: [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595; Akhil Bhartiya

Upbhokta Congress vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2011) 5 SCC 29 : [2011] 5 SCR 77;

Sachidanand Pandey and another vs. State of West Bengal and others (1987) 2 SCC 295 : [1987]

2 SCR 223; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others (2012) 3 SCC 1 : [2012] 3 SCR 147; Natural Resources Allocation, in Re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1 : [2012] 9 SCR 311 – relied on.

Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India and others (1997)

1 SCC 444 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 925; Shri

Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1267: [1993] 1 SCR 480; Victorian Granites (P) Ltd. v. P. Rama Rao and others (1996) 10 SCC 665: [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 692; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others (1979) 3 SCC 489 : [1979] 3 SCR 1014; Sharma

Transport v. Govt. of A.P. and others (2002) 2 SCC

188 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 390; Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others v. State of U.P. and others (1991)

1 SCC 212 : [1990] 1 Suppl. SCR 625; State of Punjab and another v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and another (2016) 6 SCC 1 : [2016] 4 SCR 685 – referred to.