Based on random google searches; loose and generalised statements: Bombay HC dismisses plea to lower down salaries of MLAs [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court recently rejected a plea which asked to lower down the salaries of MLAs to the average level of those of other States MLAs salaries, i.e., Rs.1,15,000/- per month. The plea had also sought a direction to reduce the perks provided to MLAs and Ex. MLAs. 

A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S. Doctor took exception to how the petition was largely based on random google searches and various newspaper articles. The Bench also expressed its strong approval against loose, unsavory and generalised statements made in the plea. 

Additionally, we must note that the Petition is only replete with (what is stated to be) the results of random Google searches and has annexed to it various newspaper articles regarding poaching of elected representatives by political parties, alleged horse trading of MLAs and security personnel provided to VIPs. The Petitioner has in the grounds gone on to make various absolutely generalized statements in respect of the MLAs, basis which certain most unsavory comments have been made by the Petitioner against all MLAs in general. We must express our strong disapproval to such loose, unsavory and generalized statements.

Advocate PH Kantharia, the Government Pleader, raising preliminary objections, submitted that the issue had already been decided by this Court in the case of Shree Sandeep Pandurang Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.  She submitted that even another PIL raising a similar challenge was filed which was also dismissed by this Court. 

The Court noted that the petitioner did not make any legal submissions in support of the plea, nor did he answer the query of the Court as to how the Petition was maintainable in view of the High Courts earlier judgements. 

Additionally, we must express our strong disapproval for the manner in which this Petition has been filed and presented. A perusal of the Petition shows that the same does not contain a single legal ground in support of the reliefs which have been prayed for. In prayer clause (f) of the Petition, the Petitioner has specifically sought for repealing of amendments which are carried out in Legislative Members salaries and allowances from the year 2020. The same is nothing but a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2016, the judgement added. 

The Court held that since the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2016, he shouldve ideally submitted the following:
that the legislature lacked the competence to enact such amendments and 
that the amendments were in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. 

The Petitioner is required to make submissions in law and not give his opinion to the Court, the Bench observed. 

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal & Others that no litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Courts and easy access to justice should not be misused as a license to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.

[Read Order]