The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of provisions providing allowances, allied benefits and pension to sitting and former Uttar Pradesh MLAs and MLCs. A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the notice returnable in four weeks after hearing Retd. IAS SN Shukla for Lok Prahari.

The plea has been filed by NGO Lok Prahari, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision upholding provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members’ Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980. The challenged provisions provide various allowances and facilities to sitting legislators and benefits, including pension and family pension, to former members and their families.

Before the High Court, Lok Prahari had argued that the State Legislature’s power under Article 195 of the Constitution, read with Entry 38 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, extends to salaries and allowances of members but does not expressly contemplate pensions. It had also questioned the continuation of financial benefits after a person ceases to be a legislator.

The petitioner had highlighted the increase in legislators’ benefits over the years, contending that the present benefits include more than ?1.25 lakh per month in cash apart from facilities such as free travel, housing, medical and telephone benefits and advances.

The Allahabad High Court, however, rejected the challenge, holding that there was no constitutional prohibition against the State Legislature providing social-security measures for present and former legislators. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in Lok Prahari v. Union of India, the High Court held that the legislative competence to provide pension and other benefits to former legislators had already been recognised.

The High Court also rejected the Article 14 challenge, observing that legislators constitute a distinct class owing to their constitutional functions and that the quantum of benefits was essentially a matter of legislative policy. It held that courts could not act as a “second legislature” to reassess such policy choices absent manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

The Supreme Court has now sought the State’s response. The matter is listed after four weeks.