March 6, 2018:

The Supreme Court said it wondered if the proposal to set up an independent mechanism was still on the table or it had been given up.

On Tuesday, Supreme Court asked the Centre if it intends to set up an independent body for determining a hike in the salary, allowances and pension of existing and former MPs.

Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, was hearing a plea challenging the grant of pension to former MPs.

Apex Court Bench asked,“Is there any proposal to set up an independent body to decide salary, allowances and pension of members of Parliament”.

Poser from Supreme Court Bench came as it referred to media reports about a proposal to set up an independent body to determine the hike in salary, allowances and pension of the lawmakers every five years.

Bench said that it wondered if the proposal to set up an independent mechanism was still on the table or it had been given up.

Referring to the procedure being followed for periodic increase in the salaries and allowances of the MPs, Attorney General KK Venugopal referred to proposal in the Finance Bill 2018-2019, which provides for automatic revision in salaries, constituency allowances and office expenses of the MPs every five years and linking the hike with inflation index.

Apex Court Bench was hearing of two petitions by NGO Lok Prahari and Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), who have challenged the constitutional validity of the provision of the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, allowing the grant of pensions to former MPs.

As the petitioners hammered on the meaning of the word pension as it is understood in the context of employer-employee relationship, the bench said much emphasis should not be laid on the word pension as it could have been called by any other word like “compensation for the past services” rendered by the former lawmakers.

Justice Chelameswar added that,“It is not the nomenclature that is important, it is in the wisdom of Parliament and we can’t sit in judgement on the wisdom of Parliament”.

He further added that,"Making it clear that it could only look into administrative action of the government. Apex Court had consistently maintained that it would not interfere with each and every act of Parliament".

Observing that he did not see anything “morally” and “legally” wrong in giving pension to former lawmakers,

Justice Chelameswar said that,“A lot of them have dedicated their whole life. I don’t find it objectionable, morally and legally, giving them perks like free travel along with a companion.”

He also said many of them were on the ripe side of their life.

“Ultimately, it is the wisdom ... whether it is an ideal state of affairs, (it) is not for us to decide. Is it (ideal state of affairs) possible in any country. Has it happened in human history? Constitution is a working arrangement to run a society,” Justice Chelameswar said as counsel Kamini Jaiswal appearing for ADR said that if what MPs get is just an allowance to meet their expenses, then how does it translate into pension imposing a “huge burden on the exchequer”.

 

Attorney General will on Wednesday address the court on the stand of the government which is opposing the plea by the NGO.

Picture Source :