Can’t keep occupying government bungalow indefinitely,” said the Supreme Court on July 22, while dismissing a former Bihar MLA Avinash Kumar Singh’s plea against Rs 21 lakh penal rent for staying in an upscale bungalow in Patna for two years from April 2014 to May 2016 after resigning as a legislator. He had the temerity to term the demand as “illegal” and the sum as “huge”. And said he was entitled to a government accommodation after being nominated to the State Legislature Research and Training Bureau. For good measure, he cited the 2009 notification to buttress his claim that he was entitled to all the perks an MLA was entitled to. The court told him the first thing he ought to have done was to vacate the bungalow and not squat on it in anticipation of what is known as post-retirement sinecure. Earlier, the Patna High Court had expressed similar sentiments that the 2009 notification did not entitle him to continue in the accommodation earmarked for the legislators, and it nowhere provided that a former MLA could retain the same quarters. A stinging rap on the knuckles indeed. Equally stinging were the Supreme Court verdicts in two earlier cases, the Lok Prahari case and the SD Bandi case, which ruled that public figures cannot unauthorisedly use their clout.

But then, unfortunately, some of the SC judges have not practiced what the SC has preached. The Supreme Court administration has asked the Union Ministry of Urban Development to initiate the process of getting the official residence of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) vacated, which is at present........

© Free Press Journal