Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
An NGO challenged amendments to the Salaries, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, which granted pensions and travel/other facilities to former MPs and their spouses/companions, arguing these amendments were unconstitutional. The Allahabad High Court had dismissed the challenge, holding the issue was already settled by an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Common Cause) upholding Parliament's competence to legislate on MP pensions. The appellant argued the earlier case never actually examined whether such pensions violated the equality guarantee under Article 14.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed that Parliament has the legislative competence to grant pensions to ex-MPs, following Common Cause, but examined afresh whether the pension/perk scheme violated Article 14. After reviewing constitutional provisions on pensions for other offices (President, Judges, CAG, Election Commissioners) and Constituent Assembly debates, the Court held that the Constitution's silence on MP pensions does not prohibit Parliament from granting them, and that legislative choices about how generous such benefits should be, weighed against public funds and need, are matters of policy for Parliament, not matters for judicial review, unless the law itself is shown to be unconstitutional (which it was not here). The appeal was dismissed, with a connected application by the Election Commission to be removed as a party also allowed.
Lesson Learnt
Courts generally will not strike down legislation merely because judges might disagree with the wisdom or generosity of a policy choice (such as pension benefits): judicial review of a law is limited to whether it violates the Constitution, not whether it reflects good or fair policy.