New Delhi, September 3: The Supreme Court has called upon the central government to respond to a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the resignation of constitutional officials. This PIL seeks to prevent these officials from receiving allowances, facilities, and other benefits if they resign mid-term to evade removal from office.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan issued a notice to the government, scheduling the next hearing for September 17.
The petitioner, Pratik Veera from Mumbai, filed this PIL through lawyer Sangram Singh R. Bhosale. It raises significant constitutional issues regarding the premature resignations of officials in high constitutional positions.
According to the PIL, officials who are elected or appointed for a specific term have a constitutional obligation to complete their term and fulfill their responsibilities unless removed through the process outlined in the Constitution.
The petition argues that resigning to avoid removal or a no-confidence motion undermines the constitutional safeguards associated with high office. It asserts that holding a high constitutional position imposes an unwritten obligation on officials to either complete their term or face a transparent removal process.
Additionally, the PIL claims that the benefits received after resignation incentivize constitutional officials to resign rather than face actions that could lead to their removal.
The petitioner contends that the option to resign to avoid removal was neither anticipated nor desirable, and such behavior erodes the trust placed in high constitutional officials by the Constitution.
The petitioner has requested a declaration that constitutional officials who resign mid-term specifically to avoid removal should not be entitled to benefits that would otherwise be available upon completing their term.
The PIL argues that this step would promote integrity, transparency, accountability, and constitutional behavior in public life. It also compares the situation to non-constitutional officials, noting that service rules generally prohibit resignations when departmental proceedings are pending, which could result in removal or other penalties.
According to the PIL, individuals in constitutional positions, being in a higher office than non-constitutional employees, should demonstrate greater integrity by completing their term or facing the removal process as prescribed by the Constitution.
The petition alleges that treating constitutional officials differently regarding benefits after mid-term resignations is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petitioner urges the Supreme Court to view this issue as a pure question of constitutional law, arguing that this PIL is not directed against any individual or based on any specific incident.
The petition also seeks appropriate directions to establish rules that would prevent benefits from being granted to constitutional officials who resign mid-term to evade removal proceedings.
Concerns are raised in the PIL regarding the public perception that constitutional officials can resign to halt removal proceedings while still retaining their associated benefits. Such resignations are described as a “theoretically flawed method” to evade constitutional duties, and it is argued that this trend is against the rule of law, which is a fundamental part of the Constitution’s framework.
–
Leave a Comment