Summary
The Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenge to statutory pensions and facilities for MPs, former MPs and their associated beneficiaries. Constitutional silence on MP pensions did not prohibit Parliament from providing them. Pension was not confined to former government employees; legislative competence existed under Entries 73 and 97 of List I. Objections based on beneficiaries’ wealth, short tenure or wider poverty did not justify replacing Parliament’s policy choice absent constitutional invalidity. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether Article 106’s silence prohibited pensions and related benefits.
- Whether pension could be provided to persons who were not State employees.
- Whether the policy objections established constitutional invalidity.
Provisions considered
- Article 106, Constitution of IndiaThe quoted entitlement to salaries and allowances did not, through silence about pensions, prohibit legislation providing pension benefits. (¶¶ 10, 19, 20, 21)
- Seventh Schedule, List I, Entries 73 and 97, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held “allowances” broad enough to cover the impugned benefits and, independently, found residuary legislative power sufficient under Common Cause. (¶¶ 3, 27)
Held
- Express constitutional references protecting pension for certain officeholders did not mean pension was constitutionally prohibited for all others. The cited provisions protected applicable conditions against disadvantageous change rather than supporting the exclusive entitlement asserted by the appellants. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21)
- The Court did not make a final declaration about an implied constitutional obligation to pay pensions to other independent constitutional officeholders. Its discussion was limited to rejecting the premise that express text created the exclusive class asserted. (¶ 20)
- Pension was not a term confined to former State employees. Other statutory pensions illustrated the fallacy; MPs’ work not being an occupation under Article 19(1)(g) did not prohibit Parliament from providing the benefits. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- Parliament was competent to legislate: Entry 73’s allowances covered pensions and the related benefits, and Entry 97 independently supported the law. Legislative policy remained subject to constitutional limitations, but courts could not invalidate it merely from a different preference. (¶¶ 22, 27, 31)
- Arguments about affluent beneficiaries, tenure and the poverty of others were treated as questions of legislative policy rather than grounds establishing the alleged invalidity. The challenged provisions were not struck down. (¶¶ 18, 31, 33)
- The Election Commission’s application for deletion was allowed because no relief or direction was sought against it in this constitutional challenge. (¶ 32)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; challenged pension and facility provisions left standing. Election Commission deleted from the array of parties.