Rajasthan HC Strikes Down Act Providing 'Extra Facilities' to Former Chief Ministers :

1. A division bench of Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday struck down the Rajasthan Ministers' Salaries (Amendment) Act 2017 which provided "extra facilities" to former chief ministers including lifelong government accommodation.

2.The amendment act had modified the Rajasthan Ministers' Salary Act 1956.

3. Striking down Section 7BB and Section 11(2) of the Rajasthan Ministers Salaries Act, 2017, the Rajasthan High Court has held that former chief minister of Rajasthan cannot avail life-long facilities like government bungalows, telephone and car.

4. Equating a serving minister who is a public servant, for the purpose of grant of residential accommodation is nothing but appropriation of state wealth for no reason other than having held a high elective office, the bench of Chief Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prakash Gupta announced while deciding the case captioned "Milap Chand Dandia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr."

Background :

The Petitioner, had challenged the constitutionality of Section 7BB and Section 11 of the Rajasthan Ministers Salaries Act, 2017 (the Act), which provides that former CMs will get a government residence, a car for their family members, telephone and a staff of 10 persons including a driver for the remainder of their lives. Further, Section 11(2) of the Act grants protection to allotments made to former chief ministers, who had served for less than a full tenure.
Arguments :

1.The Petitioner submitted that "having regard to the egalitarian principle underlined by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, assuring rent free accommodation and other perks, in the form of 'freebies' would be distribution of largesse, not based on any rationale". It was contended that :

2. Articles 164(5), 195 and Entries 38 and 40 of List II of the Constitution provide for payment of salary and allowances only to the 'members' of legislatures or ministers.

3. State legislature can decide only the salary of the CM and other ministers under Article 164 of the Constitution and thus it does not have the prerogative to make provisions for residential accommodation.

4. Govt. bungalows constitute public property which are scarce and mea herefore, are questions of public character and would be amenable to adjudication on the touchstone of reasonable classification as well as arbitrariness.

5. The impugned provisions fail the test of 'reasonableness' as laid down by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another, AIR 1978 SC 597, in as much as after demitting office, a CM becomes a common man and there is no intelligible differentia to justify separate and exclusive treatment to them.

6. Providing luxurious lifestyles and facilities to former CMs poses extra burden on the state exchequer, given the financially backwardness of the State of Rajasthan.

7. The impugned provisions are contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 1, wherein the court had held that retention of official accommodation by CMs after they had demitted office violates the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

8.The State on the other hand, argued that it had the legislative competence to make provisions for residential accommodation and other allowances to former Chief Ministers. It also submitted that CMs were distinct from holders of other kind of public office, who serve in administrative capacities and superannuate according to a previously prescribed norms. Thus there was an intelligible differentia to justify separate and exclusive treatment to former CMs. Reliance was placed on Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 444.

9. Wherein the Apex Court held that "certain holders of public office such as President, Vice President, Prime Minister, etc. stood on a different footing when it came to allotment of public property after completion of tenure.