IMPORTANT POINT
Policy decision of Parliament in their wisdom as regards pension to MPs and ex-MPs is not justiciable.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 106 – Article 106 providing for salaries of MPs without any express reference to pension – In fact, no express mandate exists for the payment of pension with respect to any one of the Constitutional offices – However, if the law provides for the payment of pension, it cannot be varied to the detriment of the incumbent. (Para 10, 15)
       (2002) 1 SCC 88 – Referred
       (b) Sections 8AC, 8AA, 6B(1) and (2) r/w Article 106, Constitution of India – Constitution does not mandate payment of pension – It only protects pension payable under relevant applicable law – Silence of the Constitution does not mean it prohibits pension – Permissible for Parliament to enact law for the same. (Para 20, 21, 22)
       4 Wheat. 316, 425-437, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819) – Referred
       (c) Words and Phrases – Pension – Does not mean only the amount paid to former employees of the State after their superannuation – There are other pensions like Old Age Pension, Widow Pension, and Disability Pension etc. – Entry 73 of List-I, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India r/w “allowances”, Entry 97 of List-I. (Para 24, 27)
       (2016) 6 SCC 82 – Distinguished
       (d) Words and Phrases – Pension – Pension to MPs, Ex-MPs – Policy decision of Parliament in their wisdom – Not justiciable. (Para 31)
       (1985) Supp SCC 189 – Relied upon
       (e) Practice and Procedure – Election Commission arrayed as a party – No relief sought against it, nor any directive prayed for from it – Appeal a purely constitutional challenge – IA seeking deletion of Election Commission from array of parties – Allowed. (Para 32)
       Facts of the case:
       A Writ Petition was filed challenging the Constitutional validity of certain Amendments made to the Salaries, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament Act, 1954. The provisions challenged relate to the payment of pension and other facilities to members of Parliament and ex-members of Parliament, and their spouses/companions/dependents.
       The question to be answered in this case is whether any of the impugned amendments which create various rights in favour of ex-MPs & their ASSOCIATES and certain other facilities to MPs are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as being discriminatory.
       Finding of the Court:
       Policy decision of Parliament in their wisdom is not justiciable.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Chelameswar, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a Writ Petition that challenged the Constitutional validity of certain Amendments [By the Amendment Act 2003, Act 9 of 2004, Amending Act No. 40 of 2006 and Amending Act 37 of 2010.] made to the Salaries, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The provisions challenged relate to the payment of pension and other facilities to members of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "MPs") and ex-members of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "ex-MPs"), and their spouses/companions/dependents (collectively hereafter referred to as "ASSOCIATES"). The 1st Appellant sought the following prayers, inter alia, in the Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court:

1. "Declare that the provisions of various amending Acts to Act 30 of 1954, and particularly those of the Amending Act 9 of 2004, and Amending Act No. 40 of 2006 and Amending Act 37 of 2010, providing for pension/family pension to ex-MPs/dependents, travel facilities to spouse and other non-members, (in addition to the companion) and ex-MPs, as well as continuation of facilities, regarding unutilized quotas of telephone calls electricity and water units are ultra vires of the Constitution and the original Act.
2. Issue a mandamus to the opposite parties 1 to 4 to stop forthwith payment of pension/family pension to ex-MPs/dependents, and provision of other facilities in 1 above.
3. Order recovery of illegal pension/family pension from the recipients thereof."

3. The High Court dismissed the writ petition negating all contentions raised by the 1st Appellant herein, holding that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the Judgment in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (2002) 1 SCC 88 (hereafter referred to as "Common Cause") wherein this Court held that Parliament is competent to legislate on pensions for ex-MPs and as a corollary it has the power to prescribe any condition subject to which the pension may be paid. We are in total agreement with the conclusion of the High Court on the question of legislative competence.

4. The question which remains to be answered is whether any of the impugned amendments which create various rights in favour of ex-MPs & their ASSOCIATES and certain other facilities to MPs are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as being discriminatory. It was the case of the Appellant that the Common Cause case is silent in this respect. However, the High Court took the view that the attack on Article 14 is foreclosed by Common Cause.

5. It is argued before us that Common Cause took note of the Petitioner's argument therein ["5. Reference was made by the Petitioner in WP (C) No. 246 of 1993, appearing in person, to the provisions of Article 14 and it was submitted that there was discrimination in favor of Members of Parliament by giving them pension when, unlike Judges, they were not subject to the process of impeachment."] that the Act is violative of Article 14, however, there was neither any discussion on the issue nor any binding decision on the question. ["7. The issue before us is squarely one of competence, namely, the competence of Parliament to enact the said Section 8-A. We need not go into Entry 73 of List I for we are in no doubt that such competence is conferred upon Parliament by the residuary Entry 97 of List I, and there is no provision in Article 106 or elsewhere that bars the payment of pension to Members of Parliament."] Therefore, it is submitted that the High Court erred in concluding that the challenge to the impugned provisions is impermissible. We propose to limit our examination in the present case to the question of the constitutionality of various Amendments brought after the Common Cause case on grounds other than legislative competence.

6. To answer the same, we may start with the analysis of the various provisions of the Constitution creating various constitutional office

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 354

IMPORTANT POINTPolicy decision of Parliament in their wisdom as regards pension to MPs and ex-MPs is not justiciable.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Policy decision of Parliament in their wisdom as regards pension to MPs and ex-MPs is not justiciable.