Petition Seeks to Bar Perks for Constitutional Officers Resigning to Avoid Removal

NEW DELHI, September 3 — A public‑interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court has called for a ban on all post‑service allowances for constitutional office‑holders who step down before the expiry of their term in order to escape a removal process. The petition, submitted by a Mumbai resident through lawyer Sangram Singh Bhosle, raises a fundamental constitutional question about the duty of high‑ranking officials to either fulfil their tenure or undergo a transparent removal mechanism.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan issued a notice to the Union Government and fixed the next date of hearing for September 17. The filing contends that the current system, which permits benefits such as pension upgrades, housing, and travel allowances after a mid‑term resignation, creates a perverse incentive for officials to abandon their posts rather than confront a possible impeachment.

According to the petition, this practice dilutes the constitutional safeguard intended to ensure accountability and erodes public confidence. It also alleges that granting such benefits to resigning officials amounts to discrimination against other public servants who are barred from receiving similar perks while disciplinary action is pending.

The Supreme Court’s order now obliges the centre to explain its stance on the issue and to consider drafting rules that would deny post‑service perks to any constitutional officer who resigns solely to avoid a removal proceeding.