Pension to Parliamentarians is the New Privy Purse

START OF PENSION TO PARLIAMENTARIANS

The Supreme Court on April 16, 2018, dismissed a PIL challenging the perks, including pension and travel allowances, given to former Parliamentarians. The Centre had on March 7 told the apex court that the entitlement of former Members of Parliament (MPs) to get pension and other benefits was “justified” as their dignity has to be maintained even after they complete their tenure as parliamentarians.

An NGO ‘Lok Prahari’ had approached the apex court in March 2017, pleading that pension and other perks being given to MPs even after demitting office were contrary to Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution. The plea had also said that Parliament has no power to provide for pensionary benefits to lawmakers without making any law.

Article 106 of our Constitution gives Parliament the authority to decide the salaries and allowances of MPs. In 1954, when Parliament specified the salaries and allowances of MPs, the law did not have a provision for pension benefits for ex-MPs. More than 22 years later, the law was amended in 1976 to provide a pension of Rs 300 to ex-MPs. Under the law, an ex-MP who had served for more than 5 years was entitled to an additional pension of Rs 50 per month for each extra year served, but the total pension was capped at Rs 500 per month. Also, pension benefits were made available only to MPs who had served for at least 5 years.

While MPs’ monthly pension was revised over the years, the eligibility criterion of serving for a minimum 5 years remained in place until 2003, when the law was amended to remove this condition. It was estimated that by then, this provision had denied pension to approximately 764 Lok Sabha MPs and more than 200 Rajya Sabha MPs.

The other significant amendment to the law came in 2006. Until then, a deceased ex-MP’s spouse or dependents were entitled to receive only family pension for a limited time. The 2006 amendment gave them the security of family pension to the tune of half of the ex-MP’s entitled pension for life.

From May 2009 (beginning of the 15th Lok Sabha), ex-MPs have received a pension of Rs 20,000 per month. MPs who have served for more than 5 years receive an additional Rs 1,500 per month for every year they have been in Parliament in excess of 5 years. Ex-MPs can travel free in AC First Class of any train when travelling alone, and in AC Second Class with a companion, both for free. On the demise of an ex-MP, their spouse or dependent receives a family pension which is half of the pension to which the ex-MP was entitled. Ex-MPs are also entitled to receive medical treatment under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). Lastly, they can borrow books from the Parliament library by paying a security deposit of Rs 500.

SHUT DOWN OF PRIVY PURSES TO ERSTWHILE RULERS

When the British Crown partitioned British India and granted independence to the new Dominions of India and Pakistan, more than a third of the sub-continent was still covered by princely states, with rulers whose position and status within the Indian Empire had varied. In 1947, princely states numbering over 550 covered 48% of area of pre-Independent India and constituted 28% of its population. Most joined India.

The Instruments of Accession needed the states to only cede defence, communications and foreign relations to India. Democratic institutions were introduced in these states and it was only in 1949 that they were fully merged with India to form new states. Although in 1947 the royal families had been allowed to retain large sums of money as their Privy Purse, in 1949 with the states and its revenues being entirely taken over by the Government of India, it was the Indian Government that provided the rulers and their families with Privy Purses. The Privy Purses were determined by several factors. For the 565 princely states, Privy Purses ranged from 5000 Rupees per annum to amounts in millions. For certain other states, while certain amounts were guaranteed for the time being, it was liable to be reduced soon after. The Government of India also generally reduced the allowances with every succession in the family.

As defined from 1949 under Article 291 of the Indian Constitution, a privy purse would be a fixed, tax-free sum guaranteed to the former princely rulers and their successors. The sum was intended to cover all expenses of the former ruling families, including those incurred for religious and other ceremonies, and would be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.

The motion to abolish Privy Purses in India, and the official recognition of the titles, was originally brought before the Parliament in 1969 and passed in the Lok Sabha, but failed in the Rajya Sabha. The Bill was again passed in the Lok Sabha on September 2, 1970 but was defeated once again in the Rajya Sabha on September 5, 1970. It was again proposed in 1971, and was successfully passed as the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1971. Then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi argued the case for abolition based on equal rights for all citizens and the need to reduce the government's revenue deficit.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD THROUGH LEGISLATIVE IMPRUDENCE

The current debate around the pension entitlements of MPs raises a few significant questions. First, and more fundamental issue is whether the benefits that are provided to MPs are 

1. adequate for them to perform their duties and, 
2. attractive enough for interested and committed individuals to join politics. 

This puts the debate out into a far wider field, and opens up many related deeper issues that concern the current nature and understanding of politics itself. Issues like nature of Membership of Parliament being a full time job, office of profits, parallel professional engagements in Law or accounting, legislating on matters on which the MPs are themselves facing the law, and such millions of questions come up.  Politics as a hobby, profession, vocation, career or a part-time indulgence, and essential requirements for each one of such pursuits come up.

Secondly, there was no provision for Pension in the original Act, “the Salary and Allowances of Members of Parliament Act, 1954.” The objective of the Act was modified in 1976 to include “.. To provide for the Salary, Allowances and Pension...” while the title of the Act was changed to “the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954” in 2004. The law governing the emoluments of MPs provides for a Joint Committee of Parliament to recommend changes in their salary and allowances. This Committee had recommended in 2005-06 that the government should consider a permanent independent mechanism for recommending changes in the salaries and other benefits of MPs. This recommendation has been accepted by the government but there is no consensus so far on setting up of the Commission. The fundamental issue - should MPs as the highest legislators decide their own salaries, allowances and pensions by passing a law in Parliament remains unaddressed. Does this not create a conflict of interest?

The abolition of the privy purses was a constitutional betrayal and must rank as one of the most shameful episodes of our constitutional history. A parliament which takes away the contracted payment of Privy-Purse for maintenance of their dignity to the erstwhile 500 odd rulers of the various pre-independence states which constitutes India, chooses to pay pensions to the new monarchs called parliamentarians for maintenance of their dignity is hypocrisy at its best and injustice at its worst.

__________________________________
Feel free to share the post with your friends and networks!!
You are invited to follow the author’s blog in HINDI -

• https://www.facebook.com/vichaaronkeeduniyamein 

--------------------------------------------------------------------