No constitutional embargo on state legislature in granting allowances to MLAs, MLCs: Allahabad High Court

Justices Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary dismissed the public interest litigation.

‘Lifetime office of profit’

• The petitioner contended that what began as modest reimbursement for actual work, has now been converted into a lifetime office of profit and perks for the member, his family and even a companion.
• The core grievance of the petitioner was that all these provisions granting benefits travel far beyond the limited power conferred by Article 195 of the Constitution, which speaks only of salary and allowances to members and makes no mention of pension, post-retirement benefits, facilities to family/companion, or other facilities.
• Article 195 states that the MLAs and MLCs of a state shall be entitled to receive such salaries and allowances as may be determined by the state’s legislature.
• According to the petitioner, the impugned provisions converted the position of MLA/MLC into a lifelong boon, contrary to the constitutional scheme and democratic ethos.
• It was argued that this ever-increasing burden on the public exchequer was unjustified and amounted to “loot of public money”.

‘Policy decision cannot be invalidated’

The court observed that the dictionary meaning of “allowances” as well as the usage of the said word in common parlance, one can generally say that these provisions are like allowances and facilities provided to the members/ex-members, which are permissible under the provisions of Article 195 of the Constitution.

“The phraseology used in Article 195 of the Constitution of India is broad and enabling. It does not impose any express limitation restricting the Legislature from extending benefits beyond tenure. The absence of such restrictive language indicates Constitutional intent to vest wide discretion in the Legislature”, the court noted.

The court emphasised that the legislature, in its wisdom, has considered it appropriate to provide post-tenure benefits as a measure of social security and institutional continuity. It added that in the absence of any constitutional prohibition, such a policy decision cannot be invalidated merely because an alternative view is possible.

Quantum of benefits lies within legislature’s domain

Over the petitioner’s argument on the alleged excessiveness of pension and allowances, the court held that the quantum of such benefits lies within the exclusive domain of legislative policy.

“Courts are neither equipped nor Constitutionally authorised to determine what constitutes an appropriate level of pension or allowances for legislators. Such determination involves complex considerations of public policy, financial implications, and institutional requirements. The doctrine of separation of powers mandates judicial restraint, particularly in fiscal and policy matters”, the court observed.

Observing that the determination of salaries, allowances, and pension of legislators is an internal matter of legislative functioning, the court held that judicial interference in such matters would amount to encroachment upon legislative domain.

The court also observed that the issues sought to be raised in the plea stand substantially concluded by binding precedents of the Supreme Court, leaving little scope for re-examination.

The court remarked that the challenge mounted by the petitioner was essentially rooted in a policy disagreement rather than any demonstrable constitutional infirmity.

It held that the constitutional scheme does not inhibit the legislature from enacting provisions relating to pension, allowances, or allied benefits in favour of its ‘members’, including ‘former members’.