India: Centre Acknowledges Merit to Deny Perks to Tainted Constitutional Functionaries

• The Central government has indicated to the Supreme Court that a Public Interest Litigation seeking to deny post-resignation benefits to constitutional functionaries who resign to avoid removal proceedings has merit.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, acknowledged the petitioner Pratik Vira's case before a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
• The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to file a counter-affidavit in the case of Pratik Vira v Union of India.
• The PIL argues that constitutional functionaries often resign to circumvent removal or impeachment, yet continue to receive perks, which the petitioner claims is against the rule of law.
• There is a public perception that such resignations are used to frustrate accountability proceedings while retaining benefits.

The Central government's acknowledgment of the PIL's merit signals a potential shift in how accountability for high-ranking public servants is viewed and enforced.

The Central government recently informed the Supreme Court that a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to prevent constitutional functionaries, including judges, from retaining post-resignation benefits and amenities when they resign to circumvent removal proceedings, appears to hold substantial merit. This significant development occurred during a hearing on Thursday for the case titled Pratik Vira v Union of India, where Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government.

Appearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Solicitor General Mehta acknowledged that the petitioner, Pratik Vira, had presented a compelling argument. He committed to seeking further instructions from the government and subsequently filing a formal response. Following this, the Court granted an intervention application and issued a directive for the Union government to submit its counter-affidavit. This matter had previously come before the Supreme Court on September 3, at which time the Central government's response was initially requested.

The petitioner, Pratik Vira, initiated the legal challenge by asserting that constitutional functionaries frequently opt to resign from their positions when faced with potential removal or impeachment proceedings. This strategic resignation, according to the plea, serves to avert the formal removal process, thereby allowing these individuals to continue enjoying the various perks and facilities associated with their former high offices.

Central to the petitioner's argument is the widespread public perception that such resignations are primarily intended to frustrate the very proceedings designed to ensure accountability. Despite stepping down under these circumstances, these individuals reportedly continue to receive benefits, which the petitioner contends creates a problematic precedent. The PIL specifically targets the issue of tainted judges perks in India, among other constitutional functionaries, who might exploit this loophole.

The practice highlighted in the PIL, where constitutional functionaries post-resignation benefits are retained despite avoiding removal proceedings, is presented by the petitioner as being fundamentally contrary to the rule of law. This principle, a cornerstone of the legal system, demands that all individuals, regardless of their former position, are subject to the same legal standards and processes.

The Central government's acknowledgment of the PIL's merit signals a potential shift in how accountability for high-ranking public servants is viewed and enforced. Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the petitioner, it could establish a significant precedent, ensuring that individuals who resign to escape removal proceedings do not continue to enjoy the privileges of offices they effectively abandoned under duress. This could significantly impact future strategies for officials facing such actions and potentially alter the landscape of accountability for constitutional functionaries.

Lawyers advising constitutional functionaries or involved in public law litigation should closely monitor the progress of Pratik Vira v Union of India. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling could establish a significant precedent regarding the forfeiture of post-resignation benefits for officials who resign to avoid removal proceedings, impacting future strategies for officials facing such actions and potentially altering the landscape of accountability for high-ranking public servants.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench