"The Constitution envisages a delicate balance between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. The determination of salaries, allowances, and pension of legislators is an internal matter of legislative functioning. Judicial interference in such matters would amount to encroachment upon legislative domain, which is impermissible unless a clear Constitutional violation is established. As observed in the material on record, the Judiciary cannot assume the role of a “second legislature” to reassess policy choices."
This observation has been made by Allahabad High Court whlile detaling with an Public Interest Litigation wherein the court has upheld the constitutional validity of pension, allowances, and post-retirement facilities granted to former MLAs and MLCs under the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members’ Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980. The PIL was decided by a Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary.
The petitioner-organisation Lok Prahari challenged provisions granting pension, travel, medical and other facilities to present and former legislators, arguing that Article 195 of the Constitution permits only salaries and allowances to sitting members and not lifelong pensionary benefits to ex-legislators or their families.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the Legislature possesses competence under Article 195 read with Entry 38 of List II to enact such provisions. It further argued that the issue already stood settled by Supreme Court decisions including Lok Prahari v. Union of India and Common Cause v. Union of India.
The High Court observed that judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining constitutional validity and not the wisdom of legislative policy. It held that courts cannot function as a “second legislature” to reassess policy decisions relating to salaries, allowances, or pensions unless a clear constitutional violation is demonstrated.
Finding no manifest arbitrariness or lack of legislative competence, the Court declined interference with the 1980 Act by stating that,
"This Court is of the considered opinion that the challenge mounted by the petitioner is essentially rooted in a policy disagreement rather than any demonstrable Constitutional infirmity. The Constitutional scheme does not inhibit the Legislature from enacting provisions relating to pension, allowances, or allied Latestlaws.com 34 WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019 benefits in favour of its ‘Members’, including ‘former members’. In a democratic polity governed by the doctrine of separation of powers, such matters are best left to the wisdom and discretion of the Legislature, subject only to well-defined Constitutional limitations. In the absence of any violation of such limitations in the present case, any interference by this Court would be wholly unwarranted and contrary to settled principles of judicial restraint. There exists no Constitutional embargo upon the State Legislature in enacting a measure of social security for its ‘Members’, as well as ‘former members’."
Case Details:
Case: PIL No. 14796 of 2019
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy & Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
Parties: Lok Prahari through Gen. Secy. S.N. Shukla vs State of U.P. & Others
Picture Source :
