The Supreme Court has issued a notice seeking the Centre’s response on a PIL against granting perks and amenities to constitutional functionaries like judges who choose to resign as a means to avoid removal proceedings.
The notice was recently issued by the bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. According to a Live Law report, the petitioner sought a declaration that a Constitutional functionary who resigned to avoid being removed would not be entitled to any perks, amenities, facilities and entitlements.
He further sought a declaration that any provision which grants such amenities even after they resign before their tenure to avoid removal is unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
PIL challenges post-resignation perks
An interim order (during pendency of the petition) to ensure that the Centre does not grant any amenities to such a Constitutional functionary was also sought in the petition.
“An easy option of resigning to avoid removal is neither contemplated nor desirable. These kinds of resignations defeat the confidence which the Constitution places upon the High Constitutional Functionaries”, the petitioner stated.
Also Read: Supreme Court to set up four benches for hearing oldest pending cases: CJI
He argued that such resignations take place because the concerned constitutional functionaries are well aware that they were entitled to the same perks and amenities regardless of whether they resign during or after their tenure.
Plea cites past resignations
The plea states that history has several instances of constitutional functionaries resigning from their posts to avoid removal.
The petitioner has also raised the issue of disparity between constitutional and non-constitutional functionaries under Article 14. He points out that non-constitutional functionaries cannot resign while facing departmental proceedings that could result in their removal.
Petitioner invokes Article 14
According to the plea, constitutional functionaries hold a higher position and are expected to maintain “probity” in public life. They should therefore complete their tenure and, where required, face removal proceedings like any other employee in the country.
Also Read: Litigant abuses CJI, ‘orders’ judges, flings case papers in Supreme Court
“Any discrimination between such non-constitutional employees and Constitutional Functionaries is hostile discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution”, stated the petition.