38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, November 04, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Patna High Court Orders Ex-Bihar CMs To Vacate Govt. Bungalows [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      21 February, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Patna High Court Orders Ex-Bihar CMs To Vacate Govt. Bungalows [Read Judgment]

The Patna High Court on February 19, 2019, has ordered all former Chief Ministers of the State to vacate the government bungalows.

In this regard, a Bench comprising of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Anjana Mishra has struck down the Bihar Special Security Group (Amendment) Act, 2010, that allowed former Chief Ministers to retain their official bungalows for lifetime.

The Bench observed that the salaries, allowances and other benefits as envisaged under Article 164(5) of the Constitution of India are all intended to be co-terminus with office and are limited by budgetary expenditures.

This sort of a benefit being introduced has absolutely no rational nexus with the object of security under the garb of which such facilities are sought to be conferred by elected public representatives on themselves fully knowing that there is no such concept of a life time privilege available after demitting office merely because they are in politics..The authority to confer such benefits on themselves in an unmeasured fashion is clearly unconstitutional and tends to reflect predatory instincts for usurping public exchequer. It is a collective expression of acquiring public property perpetually in the name of public service. The attitude therefore is divorced from morality and withers the faith of the public, the Bench said.

Further, stating that the extension of benefits after demitting office reflects a Government by the Law Makers unto themselves, the Bench said that To create a sanctuary for oneself that involves heavy finances and public resources, has to be viewed strictly under the parameters of the Constitution, that too even for a person who demits a public office which he has occupied for a fixed tenure on being elected by people. There is no provision in the Constitution that such an elected representative can claim or ask for a price after he demits office. A claim of this nature reflects as if it is something parasitical. It is a legacy of a continued red carpet treatment riding rough shod over the law. The legislation and the executive instructions are not based on reason so as to be called rational. They are not even moderate and therefore, there is no rationale behind the action under scrutiny.

The Bench referred to a decision of the apex court in the case of Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others and held that allotting premises to an Ex-Chief Minister throughout his life is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case and is otherwise constitutionally unwarranted.

The verdict came following a decision passed by the Supreme Court on February 8, 2019, in which it had ordered former Bihar deputy chief minister Tejashwi Yadav to vacate the Government bungalow meant for the deputy chief minister.

A Bench comprising of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the leader for challenging the Patna High Court decision wherein the High Court had directed Yadav to vacate the government bungalow and to shift to an accommodation for the leader of the opposition.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

no-law-student-shall-be-barred-from-exams-or-academic-progression-due-to-attendane-shortage-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
No Law Student Shall Be Barred From Exams Or Academic Progression Due To Attendane Shortage: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Delhi HC rules no law student can be barred from exams or academic progress for low attendance; directs BCI to rethink attendance norms and strengthen grievance systems.

03 November, 2025 04:03 PM
mere-refusal-to-marry-does-not-constitute-instigation-under-section-306-ipc-supreme-court
Trending Judiciary
Mere Refusal To Marry Does Not Constitute Instigation Under Section 306 IPC: Supreme Court [Read Order]

Mere refusal to marry does not amount to instigation under Section 306 IPC, rules Supreme Court, quashing FIR and holding no abetment in emotional distress cases.

03 November, 2025 04:15 PM

TOP STORIES

lawyers-to-stop-arguing-when-court-indicates-its-mind-sc
Trending Judiciary
Lawyers to stop arguing when court indicates its mind: SC [Read Judgment]

SC: Lawyers must stop arguing once court indicates its mind, stressing that harmony between Bench and Bar ensures dignified court functioning.

29 October, 2025 04:25 PM
wangchuks-detention-order-suffers-from-gross-illegality-and-arbitrariness-activists-wife-tells-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wangchuk's detention order suffers from gross illegality and arbitrariness, activist's wife tells SC

Wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk tells SC his detention under NSA suffers from illegality, citing stale FIRs, procedural lapses, and denial of fair representation.

29 October, 2025 04:35 PM
police-can-register-fir-for-threatening-witness-courts-complaint-not-needed-sc
Trending Judiciary
Police can register FIR for threatening witness; court's complaint not needed: SC [Read Judgment]

SC says police can directly file FIR for witness threats under Section 195A IPC; no court complaint needed as it’s a cognisable offence.

29 October, 2025 04:44 PM
sc-hints-at-pan-india-guidelines-on-timeline-to-frame-charges
Trending Judiciary
SC hints at pan-India guidelines on timeline to frame charges

SC mulls pan-India guidelines to curb delays in framing charges; notes cases where charges aren’t framed even after years despite BNSS mandate of 60 days.

30 October, 2025 12:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email