Supreme Court of India
COMMON CAUSE,REGISTERED SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- 22 November 2001
- Judges listed
- S.P. BHARUCHA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 323 · 2001 INSC 578
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
BHARUCHA, CJ. The Salaries and Allowances of Members ment Act, 1954 was amended by the Salaries and Allowances of Members Parliament (Amendment) Act, 1976; thereby the principal Act was renamed Sa.laries, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act and SA was introduced giving to Members of Parliament pensions on their satis· fying certain conditions stated therein. The said Section SA has been from time to time and the r~tes of pension originally indicated have increased.
p. 324, margin D
These writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Section 8A and they have been directed to be heard by a Constitution
p. 324, margin E
Our attention is drawn by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9S4/1991, to the provisions of Articles 106 of the Constitution. Article 106 reads as under :
p. 324, margin F
"106. Salaries and allowances of members.- Members House of Parliament shall be entitled to receive such salaries allowances as may from time to time be.determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that respect is so made, allowances such rates and upon such conditions as were immediately commencement of thi.s Constitution applicable in the case bers of the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India."
p. 324, margin F
325 Article 195 makes similar provision in respect of the Members of Legislative A Assemblies and Legislative Councils of the States. It is pointed out by Mr. Prashant Bhushan that whereas legislators are thereby entitled to salaries and allowances, there is no provision in regard to the payment of pension to them. The provisions of these Articles are contrasted by learned counsel to the provisions of Articles 125 and 221. Article 125(2) says that Judges of the Supreme Court shall be entitled to such privileges and allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined. There is a similar provision in regard to High Court Judges in Article 221. Our attention is also drawn to Article 148 which makes reference to the pension of a Comptroller and Auditor General. Learned counsel's argument is that where pension is to be paid to a constitutional functionary, the c Constitution makes specific provision and that, therefore, in not making such specific provision in regard to Members of Parliament under Article 106, it must be assumed that they are not entitled to receive pension.
p. 325
Learned counsel drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, (1983] 1 SCC 305 where it has been said that pension is a term applied to periodic money payments to a person who retires at a certain age, considered the age of disability, and it usually continues for the rest of the natural life of the recipient. In the case of Members of Parliament, it is submitted by learned counsel, they do not retire and they are not always of an age of disability when they demit office. E
p. 325
Reference was made by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 246/I 993, appearing in person, to the provisions of Article 14 and it was submitted that there was discrimination in favour of Members of Parliament by giving them pension when, unlike Judges, they were not subject to the process of impeachment. F
p. 325
The learned Attorney General, appearing for the respondents, drew our attention to Entries 73 and 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, Entry 73 empowers Parliament to legislate in respect of the salaries
p. 325
and allowances of Members of Parliament. Entry 97 empowers Parliament to ... legislate in respect of any matter not enumerated in List II or List III, that is, in the State and Concurrent Lists. The learned Attorney General submitted that the payments empowered under the said Section 8A were covered by the words 'salaries and allowances' under Entry 73 and that, in any event, they were covered by the residuary Entry 97 of List I. He also submitted that Article 106 was an enabling provision and could not be read as imposing a bar upon the H A receipt of pensions by Members of Parliament.
pp. 325–326
· The issue before us is squarely one of competence, namely, the competence of Parliament to enact the said Section 8A. We need not go into Entry 73 of List I for we are in no doubt that such competence is conferred upon
p. 326
Parliament by the residuary Entry 97 of List I, and there is no provision in B Article 106 or elsewhere that bars the payment of pension to Members of ·Parliament.
p. 326
In our view, therefore, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and must
p. 326
be dismissed. C No order as to costs.
p. 326
T.N.A. Writ Petitions dismissed.
p. 326