Supreme Court To Examine Plea Against Benefits For Mid-Term Resignations

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of the Central government on a Public Interest Litigation challenging the grant of perks, facilities and other benefits to constitutional functionaries who resign midway through their tenure allegedly to avoid removal proceedings. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued notice to the Union government and listed the matter for further hearing on September 17.

The PIL, filed by Mumbai-based petitioner Pratik Vira through advocate-on-record Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle, raises a broader constitutional question concerning resignations by high constitutional functionaries before the completion of their prescribed terms. The plea contends that those appointed or elected for fixed tenures have a constitutional responsibility to discharge their duties for the duration of their term unless they leave office through the removal procedure prescribed by the Constitution.

According to the petition, resigning midway through a removal or no-confidence process could undermine constitutional safeguards governing high offices. It argues that allowing functionaries to avoid such proceedings through resignation while retaining benefits associated with their office could create an incentive to choose resignation instead of facing a transparent removal process.

Also Read: Kapil Sibal Flags Voter Roll Concerns, Seeks Supreme Court Intervention Over SIR

The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to declare that constitutional functionaries who resign mid-term specifically to avoid removal proceedings should not be entitled to perks, facilities or other benefits that would otherwise accrue upon completion of their tenure. The plea argues that such a measure would promote probity in public life, transparency, accountability and constitutional conduct.

The PIL also compares constitutional functionaries with non-constitutional employees, noting that service rules in certain cases restrict resignation when departmental proceedings are pending and could result in removal or other disciplinary action. It contends that constitutional functionaries, given the greater public responsibility attached to their offices, should demonstrate a higher standard of accountability.

The petitioner has further argued that allowing benefits following such resignations could amount to hostile discrimination and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The plea has been presented as a broader question of constitutional law rather than a challenge against any particular individual or incident. It also raises concerns that permitting resignations to frustrate removal proceedings could weaken public confidence in constitutional institutions and undermine the rule of law.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes FIRs Against NEET Protesters Across India, Invokes Article 142