Summary
The Supreme Court struck down Uttar Pradesh’s statutory provision granting former Chief Ministers government residences for life on request and payment of prescribed rent. Once out of office, they did not form a constitutionally valid special class for allocation of scarce public housing merely because of their former position. Section 4(3), inserted in 2016, failed Article 14’s classification and arbitrariness tests. The decision was expressly confined to that Uttar Pradesh provision.
Issues
- Whether lifetime government housing for former Chief Ministers violated Article 14.
- Whether the public-interest challenge was maintainable without a personal rights infringement.
- Whether the 2016 statutory amendment cured the defect identified in the earlier housing rules.
Provisions considered
- Section 4(3), as substituted in 2016, Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981The provision mandated lifetime allotment on a former Chief Minister’s request and payment of prescribed rent. It was invalidated as discriminatory and arbitrary. Section 4A’s protection of accommodation for serving Ministers reinforced the public-purpose context. (¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 8, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)
Held
- Public-interest jurisdiction could address infringement of equality affecting the polity or a class rather than only an individual petitioner. Allocation of scarce government residences was a public matter amenable to review under Article 14. (¶¶ 27, 28, 36)
- Government bungalows were public property intended for public purposes, including accommodation of serving office-holders. Their allocation had to satisfy equality, fairness and public-interest requirements. (¶¶ 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 36, 38)
- After demitting office, a former Chief Minister stood on the same footing as an ordinary citizen for the housing benefit in question. Earlier office alone supplied no rational basis for lifetime allotment of scarce public accommodation, though security and protocol could present different considerations. (¶¶ 38, 39)
- The impugned provision both failed reasonable classification and conferred an arbitrary, discriminatory privilege founded on legally unacceptable considerations. Payment of prescribed rent did not save the lifetime entitlement. (¶¶ 5, 36, 38, 39, 40)
- Putting the benefit into a substantive statutory provision did not cure the constitutional defect identified when the 1997 rules were struck down. The defect persisted and the amendment could be construed as an attempt to overreach the earlier judgment. (¶¶ 3, 37)
- The Court expressly confined its adjudication to section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Act, notwithstanding that other governments had been invited to assist because similar provisions might exist. It did not invalidate every post-office accommodation arrangement nationwide. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 40)
Result
Writ petition allowed. Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, as amended in 2016, struck down as violating Article 14.