oppn parties Supreme Court Negates Misuse of Administrative Power in UP

News Snippets

  • In reply to a question in Parliament, the government says it is empowered to lawfully intercept, monitor or decrpyt information stored in a computer resource in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India
  • Police stop a 12-year old girl on her way to the Sabarimala shrine
  • In Karnataka, the JD(S) indicates that it might support the BJP government if it falls short of numbers after the bypolls
  • Congress pips the BJP in local body elections in Rajasthan, winning 961 wards to the BJPs 737
  • After Airtel and Vodafone-Idea, Jio also indicates that tariffs will be raised from December
  • Sources in Shiv Sena say that they might revive the alliance with the BJP if it offers the 50:50 deal
  • A miffed Sanjay Rout of the Shiv Sena says that it will take "100 births" to understand Sharad Pawar
  • Mobile operators Vodafone-Idea and Airtel decide to raise tariffs from next month
  • Sharad Pawar meets Sonia Gandhi and says more time needed for government formation in Maharashtra
  • Justice S A Bobde sworn in as the 47th Chief Justice of India
  • Supreme Court holds hotels liable for theft of vehicle from their parking area if parked by valet, says "owner's risk" clause is not a shield from such liability
  • Finance Minister says she is receiving feedback from many sectors that recovery is happening as there is lower stress
  • Sabarimala temple opens, but police bar the entry of women below 50 years
  • Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman says Air India and BPCL to be sold off by March
  • Media person Rajat Sharma resigns as DDCA president
Two Muslim litigants in Ayodhya refuse to accept the Supreme Court order, say review petition might be filed
oppn parties
Supreme Court Negates Misuse of Administrative Power in UP

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.
In a major blow to the old school camaraderie and “you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours” culture that prevails between all political parties that makes them allow certain mutual concessions to lawmakers and other leaders of all parties, the Supreme Court today found that the practice of ex chief ministers occupying palatial, government-allotted houses in upscale addresses of Lucknow was improper and illegal. It directed six former CM’s to vacate governments allotted houses within two months.

Lok Prahari, a UP based NGO had petitioned the apex court in this regard. The main contention of the NGO was that the ex-Chief Minister's Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 (non-statutory) (hereinafter called the Rules) were unconstitutional since all issues of benefits to ministers were governed by Uttar Pradesh (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the 1981 Act). Hence, those occupying such houses should be termed as trespassers as per the UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.

It is a mystery that the case, though listed for hearing many times, was heard for just one day in 2014 and the judgment was reserved, only to be given now. Hence, the case has been decided 12 years after it was filed and the judgment delivered 20 months after the one, only and final hearing. An earlier petition in this matter was disposed of without examining the validity of the Rules as the Additional Advocate General of UP had assured the court that the state would get the houses vacated.

The main decision in this order was about three things. Firstly, that the petitioner NGO had a locus standi in the case as a concerned body of citizens that was not acting out of any malafide interest. The court cited the case Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd) Sindri and Ors v Union of India and Ors when it was held that in the face of misuse of administrative power, public bodies do not enjoy immunity from challenge and a citizen or an organization having a “concern deeper than that of a busybody” have a right to ask the court to see if their petition against the administration is justiciable and such petitions are allowable under Article 226.

Secondly, a chief minister does not enjoy any special privileges after demitting office and is like any other ex minister. The court quoted from Section 2(e) of the 1981 Act which read “'Minister' means a member of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and includes the Chief Minister, a Minister of State and a Deputy Minister of that State."

Thirdly, the above Rules were at variance with the 1981 Act where it was provided that all ministers (which term included the chief minister) had to vacate houses allotted to them within 15 days of remitting office. The court categorically said that whenever an administrative fiat like the Rules were at variance with a statutory provision like the 1981 Act, the latter will always prevail. The court also found the Rules to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

This is a landmark judgment that will prevent executive highhandedness and arbitrariness. There are many states apart from UP who have been allotting prime public residential spaces to ex chief ministers at nominal rents which are not vacated even after their death. This is blatant misuse of administrative power. Hopefully, this judgment will act as a deterrent.