Members of Parliament and Ministers may now face breach of privilege proceedings for illegally overstaying at their Government accommodation while babus could risk losing their monthly pension till they vacate. And illegal occupants from the judiciary will have to vacate their premises within a month.
These bold proposals form part of guidelines framed by the Supreme Court on Friday in a matter where the court had examined the issue of illegal occupation of Government flats by members of executive, legislature and judiciary. Tired at the end of an effort that began in 2004 when the court had dealt with a case of illegal occupation of Government house by a driver in Karnataka Roadways SD Bandi, the bench said, “No law or directions can entirely control this act of disobedience but for the self-realisation among the unauthorised occupants.”
Terming such illegal overstay by representatives of people, high dignitaries and officers as “unfortunate”, the bench said, “The unauthorised occupants must appreciate that their act of overstaying in the premise directly infringes the right of another.” Disposing the matter with certain suggestions from its end, the bench of Justices P Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi held that judges of any forum, if overstaying in any Government accommodation, “shall” vacate their official residence within one month.
For Government employees, the bench proposed the Government to consider some provision for stoppage or reduction in the monthly pension till the date they vacated the premises.
But the most significant of the directions concerned with Ministers and Parliamentarians. “Since allotment of Government accommodation is a privilege given to the Ministers and MPs, the matter of unauthorised retention should be intimated to the Speaker/Chairman of the House and action should be initiated by the House Committee for the breach of privilege…and the appropriate Committee should recommend to the Speaker/Chairman for taking appropriate action/eviction within a time bound period.”
In addition, it directed that no memorials should be allowed to come up in Government houses earmarked for residential accommodation. Prescribing a time-frame for carrying out eviction proceedings, the bench felt that even in case where illegal occupation was on account of a genuine ground, such occupation should not extend for more than 30 days.
The court was guided in making these suggestions by amicus curiae senior advocate Ranjit Kumar who proposed breach of privilege proceedings against MPs and strict action against defaulters under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971. Two States — Odisha and UP — had enacted amendments in the law to make illegal occupation of official flat amount to criminal trespass under Section 441 of IPC. However, it was not acceptable either to the Centre or other States.