The apex court, hearing a challenge to the amendments to an Uttar Pradesh legislation allowing ex-chief ministers of the state to continue occupying government bungalows, left it open to the Centre and states to appear before it and express their views.
A bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi took into account the suggestions by senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, in this regard.
The court requested the amicus to communicate a copy of its order to the office of the Attorney General or Solicitor General, as well as the advocates general of states, who might have a similar legislation like Uttar Pradesh.
More From This Section
"Even if we do not increase the width of this proceeding, should we not leave it open to the Centre and other states to take part in the proceedings," the bench asked the amicus who said "it would be most appropriate".
Subramaniam said since the issue might have ramifications for the Centre as well as the states, the Attorney General or Solicitor General and advocate generals of the states could be asked to give their suggestions.
Earlier, the amicus, in his suggestions given to the top court, had said that after persons holding top constitutional posts demit office, they were like ordinary private citizens and not entitled to official accomodation.
The court had last year observed that the issue needed to be debated at length as its directions mighht affect various state and central legislations regarding allotment of government accomodation to ex-chief ministers.
It also challenged another UP law of 2016 called 'The Allotment of Houses under Control of the Estate Department Bill-2016' to regulate the allotment of government accommodations to trusts, journalists, political parties, speaker and deputy speaker of legislative assembly, judicial officers and government officials.
The apex court had sought the UP government's response in November 2016, after the plea claimed that the state government has sought to skirt the Supreme Court's verdict of August 1, 2016 by amending the law.
It had also said the state government should recover appropriate rent from the occupants of these bungalows for the period during their "unauthorised occupation".