M PALANIBABA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is for issue of Mandamus directing the Union of India to recover the expenditure incurred by Thiru R. Venkataraman, the former President of India, for his personal visits to Kancheepuram Mutt. THE petition was filed on 14.9.1992 supported by an affidavit dated 15.6.1992. In that affidavit it was alleged that the second respondent did not enjoy any special privilege and he was like any other citizen of India governed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As the Head of Executive, he could travel throughout India for any official purpose, but there was no provision anywhere in the Constitution or in any other law enabling him to utilise any transport of the Government for his personal visits, unless he paid for it from his own pocket. According to the affidavit, the Indian Constitution is entirely different from that of the American Constitution and any other Constitution in the World and there is no question of First Man and First Lady in this country. It was also alleged that from the date of assuming office, the second respondent used to visit Kancheepuram Mutt and for every visit he came all the way from New Delhi to Madras by a Special flight and from Madras to Kancheepuram he took three helicopters at the expense of the Government and the Government was not bound to provide him with any transport for those visits.

(2.) WHEN the matter was posted before me for admission on 13.10.1992 I pointed out that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was too vague and very bald and the petition could not be considered on the strength of such an affidavit. Counsel took adjournments and another affidavit was filed on 23.10.1992. In that affidavit, reference has been made to Articles 52 to 55, 59(3) and 60 of the Constitution of India. Referring to Article 60, it is stated in the affidavit that the oath taken by the President at the time of assuming office is significant in that it requires the individual to devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of India. It is further stated that the President of India enjoys a pre-eminent position and is the first citizen of India and only a very eminent person of a very high intellectual and moral calibre and political and public standing has, as a rule, been elected to the office of the President of India. According to the affidavit, the President must conduct himself in such a way that he is an example to the rest of the citizens of India and as the Head of the Executive, he can travel to any place in the World for any official purpose. It is stated that apart from the official functions, the President, being a citizen of India, does not enjoy any special privileges than any other citizen and he is also governed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The averments made in the earlier affidavit are repeated in the later affidavit and it is stated that the petitioner has no grievance as to the devotion of the second respondent towards any one of the three Sankaracharyas of the Kancheepuram Mutt in his individual capacity, but the second respondent had burdened the exchequer of the State considerably by making frequent visits to Kancheepuram by using the office of the President and privileges attached thereto. It is alleged that he had no power to utilise any transport of the government, unless he paid for it from his own pocket and the Government was not bound to provide him with transport for his personal visits. It is further stated that this Court has a constitutional duty under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the second respondent to refund all the expenses incurred in connection with his private visits to the Kancheepuram Mutt because the Constitution is secular in character and the preamble to the Constitution expressly refers to the same.

(3.) THE India (Provisional Constitution) Order 1947 amended the Third Schedule by substituting the words ?fixed by His Majesty in Council? in paragraph 2 thereof by the words ?fixed, as respects the Governor-General by Act of the Dominion Legislature, and as respects Governor by order of the Governor-General? and the words ?determined by His Majesty in Council? in the said paragraph by the words ?so determined?. THE same order added another paragraph to the Schedule, numbered as paragraph 7, which was a transitory provision, entitling the Governor-General to the same allowances and privileges as he was entitled to immediately before the date of the establishment of the Dominion under the rules and orders then in force, until other provisions were made by Act of the Dominion Legislature.