The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a PIL assailing grant of perks and amenities to constitutional functionaries like judges who resign from their post to avoid proceedings for removal.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order.

Briefly put, the petitioner seeks a declaration under Article 32 that any Constitutional functionary who tenders their resignation to avoid being removed shall not be entitled to any perks, amenities, facilities or entitlements.

He further seeks a declaration that any provision which makes such a constitutional functionary entitled to perks, amenities or facilities, even after resignation mid tenure, just to avoid being removed, is unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner also seeks an interim order (during pendency of the petition) so that the Union of India does not grant any perks or facilities to a Constitutional functionary who resigned after the process of removal commenced or to avoid such commencement.

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.

Appearance: AoR Sangramsingh R Bhonsle, Advocates Pushkara A Bhonsle, Sneha S Bhonsle, Sanmitra YP, Shruti Sharma and Brahamjyot Singh.

Case: Pratik Vira v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 1086/2026