MPs’ perks and privileges should be codified

Why must former members of Parliament be paid a pension?

Perks to parliamentarians long questioned by public-spirited citizens have now been found “prima facie unreasonable” by the Supreme Court. Acting on an NGO petition, the apex court has asked the Centre why allowances and facilities to former lawmakers should not be scrapped. NGO Lok Prahari contends that Governors do not get pension. A civil servant earns it after almost a life-time service, but an MP even for a day and his spouse are granted pension for life. Supreme Court and high court judges are not entitled to the facility of free air/train travel for their spouses even on official tours but ex-MPs have it.

Soon after taking charge, the Narendra Modi government tried to regulate and codify MPs’ privileges, something the Supreme Court is now seeking. However, the proposal was dropped. Manohar Parrikar was among those who then came out openly against the codification of privileges. He did not want the judiciary to sit in judgment on privileges decided by Parliament. No one would like a serving or retired parliamentarian to live a life of penury and dispute a minimum assured income or pension to a serving or former legislator. But extending benefits across the board regardless of the level of income is being questioned. Some 80 per cent of MPs are reported to be crorepatis and they do not require pension. It is largesse, as the NGO counsel has pleaded, given without any guidelines and laws regulating it.