Bombay High Court Dismisses 'Unsavory' PIL Seeking To Reduce MLAs' Salaries And Perks

The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking reduction in perks and salaries of MLAs in Maharashtra, citing a previous judgment wherein it was held that this is a policy decision outside the domain of the court.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor criticized the petition, observing that it was full of generalized and unsavoury statements against all MLAs.

“Petition is only replete with (what is stated to be) the results of random Google searches and has annexed to it various newspaper articles regarding poaching of elected representatives by political parties, alleged horse trading of MLAs and security personnel provided to VIPs. The Petitioner has in the grounds gone on to make various absolutely generalized statements in respect of the MLAs, basis which certain most unsavory comments have been made by the Petitioner against all MLAs in general. We must express our strong disapproval to such loose, unsavory and generalized statements”, the court observed.

The petitioners sought various reliefs, including a reduction in the salaries of Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Maharashtra to the average level of other states, lowering perks provided to MLAs, and prohibiting salaries and perks for MLAs with assets over Rs. 5 crores of those who pay tax in the highest slab. The petition also urged the court to appoint a Judicial Commission to review the threat perception of state VIPs and to quash amendments on MLAs' salaries.

The court noted that Bhagvanji Raiyani, one of the petitioners, failed to address the court's query on the maintainability of the petition and instead chose to read the entire petition. Despite the court's insistence on legal submissions, Raiyani, who was appearing in person, continued reading out the petition and later submitted written arguments without addressing the court's queries, the court observed.

The court found the petition entirely devoid of merit. It highlighted that the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2016, which governs salaries and allowances of MLAs, had already been challenged and dismissed in a previous case, Sandeep Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, which was dismissed as it is a policy decision outside the domain of the court.

The court reiterated the earlier judgment, stating that decisions on MLAs' salaries were matters of policy and fell within the legislature's competence. It emphasized that the petition lacked any legal grounds in support of its reliefs. The Petitioner is required to make submissions in law and not give his opinion, the court observed.

The court said that having raised a constitutional challenge, the Petitioner was required to demonstrate (i) that the legislature lacked the competence to enact such amendments and (ii) that the amendments were in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution. There is no whisper in the Petition as to either of these aspects, the court observed, expressing strong disapproval for the manner of filing and presentation of the petition.

The court also referred to a previous PIL filed by the same petitioner seeking a code of conduct for elected representatives. While dismissing that PIL, the court had criticized Raiyani for regularly filing poorly drafted and haphazardly presented petitions that consume valuable judicial time and resources.

The court had expressed concern about the misuse of public interest litigation to denigrate public offices and highlighted the role elected representatives play in the government's functioning. The court had underscored the importance of maintaining respect and professionalism in legal pleadings, regardless of the nature of the case or the parties involved.

The court had stressed the need for prudence and diligence in preparing and presenting petitions before the court, urging petitioners to ensure that their submissions are well-founded, supported by adequate research, and include compelling arguments. The court had further encouraged the petitioner to seek legal assistance to understand relevant legal principles, administrative and constitutional law, and the scope of writ jurisdiction, and frivolous or poorly presented PILs hinder the resolution of other genuine and urgent cases.

The court dismissed the present petition, stating that all the aforementioned observations apply in this case too.

Case no. – Public Interest Litigation No. 47 of 2020

Case Title – Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Government of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment