Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Wednesday submitted before the Supreme Court that the petitioner challenging the grant of perks and amenities to constitutional functionaries such as judges who resign to avoid removal proceedings appears to have a case.
“I will take instructions and respond. I think the petitioner has a case. The petitioner seems to have a case. I will file a response,” Mehta told a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The Court adjourned the matter, allowing the Union of India to file a counter affidavit.
The petition seeks to restrain the grant of perks, amenities, facilities and other entitlements to constitutional functionaries who resign from office to avoid proceedings for their removal.
The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice on the plea.
The petitioner seeks a declaration that constitutional functionaries who resign just to avoid removal proceedings should not be entitled to benefits attached to their offices. The plea also challenges any provision permitting such functionaries to retain perks and amenities after resigning mid-tenure to avoid removal, as unconstitutional under Article 14.
In the petition, it is contended that a high constitutional office imposes an unwritten constitutional obligation upon a constitutional functionary to complete their tenure or to face a transparent procedure of removal. “An easy option of resigning to avoid removal is neither contemplated nor desirable. These kinds of resignation defeat the confidence which the Constitution places upon the High Constitutional Functionaries”, the petitioner avers.
The plea contends that history is fraught with examples of constitutional functionaries who resigned from their posts only to avoid removal. It is argued that these resignations are given primarily because the constitutional functionaries know that they would be entitled to the same perks and amenities after resignation as they would be if they completed the tenure.
Invoking Article 14, the petitioner also flags a disparity in the circumstances of constitutional functionaries as opposed to non-constitutional functionaries. He highlights that non-constitutional functionaries are not allowed to resign if they are facing departmental proceedings (which may lead to removal). It is contended that the position of constitutional functionaries should be higher and they must demonstrate "probity" in public life by completing their tenure and if required, by facing proceedings for removal like any other employee in the country.
“Any discrimination between such non-constitutional employees and Constitutional Functionaries is hostile discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution”, the plea states.