PIL challenging the enhancement of salaries and pensions of MLAs and MLCs in Maharashtra. The Court held that salary determination is a policy decision not subject to judicial interference and held PIL in disdain, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PIL 148-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 148 OF 2016
Shree Sandeep Pandurang Patil V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Petitioner
.. Respondents
Mr. A.S. Rao i/b Mr. P.L. Bhujbal for the petitioner. Mr. C.P. Yadav, A.G.P. for the Respondent State.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2016
P.C.:
This petition is filed challenging the self-seeking Bill passed on 5th August 2016 wherein enhancement of salaries of Members of Legislative Assembly and Members of Legislative Council as well as pension of ex-MLAs and ex-MLCs of the State came to be passed. The petition apart from challenging the Act in question, explains how the two Houses of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was formed, by narrating the history right from 1861 till formation of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly in the year 1960 consisting of Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan Parishad.
1 of 7
ABS
PIL 148-2016
2 of 7
ABS
PIL 148-2016
public at large. The petitioner further complains about the State not attending to alleged suicides of farmers due to debt burden. Instead of helping the poor and needy farmers and other citizens in the State of Maharashtra, the respondent authorities ought not to have proceeded with the Act in question. The Act in question provides nothing but irrational hike in salaries and life time pension for their minimum period of service. According to the petitioner, this is nothing but financial burden which will be thrown on to the people of the State for the benefit of few persons who are in power or who were in power.
3 of 7
ABS
PIL 148-2016
Members of Legislature in the State of Maharashtra was enhanced from Rs.25,000/- per month to Rs.40,000/- per month. This Court had occasion to see what was the pension drawn by the Members of Legislature right from 1977 upto 1993 and subsequent enhancement depending upon the number of years of service. By virtue of amending the provisions from time to time as on 8th January 2013, the pension payable became Rs.40,000/- (Rs.2,000/- for every additional year). The contention, that was raised, was with all the facilities provided to Members of Legislature during the tenure as members of Legislatures, why they should be paid for additional years service rendered by them, subsequent to completion of their tenure.
4 of 7
ABS
PIL 148-2016
Members of Parliament, facilities of vehicles, stenographers, personal assistant etc. to be also provided to them and Members of Legislative Assembly. The government expressed the view that such facilities were given to enable them to function as public representatives and to aid in the MPLAD Scheme (Member of Parliament Local Area Development). The validity of the MPLADS has been upheld in Bhim Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 538. The Court upheld the validity of the impugned Notifications, since the expenditure incurred by the State was for public purpose. Under Article 282 of the Indian Constitution, there is no restriction on such spending powers for public purpose, including facilities to legislators.
5 of 7
ABS
PIL 148-2016
such enactment. Nature of benefit is not alien to any other State. Almost all the States in India have made such provisions. Now the only question is why there has to be enhancement of salaries and pensions to the sitting and former Members of Legislature. With the price index going up due to inflation, the cost of living naturally is rising and the per capita income of the individual also is calculated vis-a-vis the inflation. The pay commission takes into consideration the inflation and likelihood of increase in the cost of living for about 10 years and recommends how the hike in the payment of salaries to various categories of employees should be made, both who serve Union of India and also respective States. When such policy decision in hiking the salaries of other group of working class is possible, we fail to understand why the salaries of Members of Legislatures and also the pensions of former MLAs / MLCs should not be increased. What amount should be paid as a salary to the Members of State Legislature definitely is a policy decision and the question is whether we should intervene in such policy decision by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6 of 7
ABS
PIL 148-2016
discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Since it is a challenge with regard to feasibility in given circumstances, we decline to interfere since no constitutional principle being violated. There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the exercise undertaken under questioned statute. We see no illegality in the exercise undertaken.
(M.S. SONAK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
7 of 7
ABS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere in the Legislature's policy decision to enhance salaries and pensions of MLAs/MLCs under Article 226.
Whether the act of hiking salaries and pensions of legislators violates any constitutional principle.
Whether alleged financial burdens on the State justify quashing the enhancement bill.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Public Interest Litigation No.172 of 2014Referred¶23
M/s Lily Thomas vs. State of TamilnaduReferred¶28
M/s Lily Thomas vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1986 Madras 290 · Who else cites this
Writ Petition Nos.4120/2001, 3849/2001 and 18635/2002Referred¶29
Bhim Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.Referred¶29
Bhim Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 538 · Who else cites this
R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit MillsReferred¶34
R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills, AIR 1979 SC 2279 · Who else cites this
Shree Sandeep Pandurang Patil
State of Maharashtra
Manjula Chellur
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
