Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea filed by NGO Lok Prahari challenging the constitutional validity of provisions granting allowances, allied benefits and pensions to sitting and former Uttar Pradesh MLAs and MLCs.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the state, returnable in four weeks.

Lok Prahari has challenged the Allahabad High Court's judgment which dismissed its PIL challenging provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980.

The High Court upheld Sections 4, 5, 9, 13(3), 13(4), 15(2), 17-A and Chapter VIII of the 1980 Act. These provisions provide various allowances and facilities to sitting members and benefits to former members, their families and companions, besides pension and family pension.

Before the High Court, Lok Prahari argued that the State Legislature lacked constitutional competence to provide pensions and various facilities to its members and former members.

It contended that Article 195 of the Constitution, corresponding to Entry 38 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, permits the State Legislature to make laws regarding the salaries and allowances of its members. The provision does not mention pensions, the petitioner contended.

It also submitted that once a person ceases to be a legislator, any continuing financial benefit lacks constitutional sanction and is arbitrary. It highlighted that the benefits available to legislators have increased from a salary of ₹200 with limited allowances in 1952 to more than ₹1,25,000 per month in cash alone, apart from free travel, housing, medical facilities, telephone facilities and advances.

The Allahabad High Court rejected the plea. The High Court held that there was no constitutional embargo on the State Legislature enacting measures of social security for its members and former members.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment in Lok Prahari v. Union of India, observing that the constitutional competence of legislatures to enact provisions concerning pensions and other benefits for former legislators had already been recognized.

The High Court also rejected the argument that the benefits violated Article 14. It held that legislators constitute a distinct class because they discharge constitutional functions involving lawmaking, representation and oversight of governance.

The High Court further rejected the comparison between legislators and government servants and held that the principle of equality does not require identical treatment of persons who are not similarly situated.

It held that the quantum of benefits was a matter of legislative policy and that courts could not act as a “second legislature” to reassess such policy choices in the absence of manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

The High Court concluded that the legislation was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. It held that the benefits to former members constituted a legitimate policy decision and the classification did not suffer from arbitrariness or hostile discrimination.

It dismissed Lok Prahari's PIL, holding that the issues raised were substantially covered by binding Supreme Court precedents and the petition sought to re-agitate issues that had already attained finality.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 26752/2026 Diary No. 42755 / 2026

Case Title – Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Tags: