SC says Sharad Yadav cannot take MP’s pay

Also Read

Some political parties and their BLAs did not examine electoral rolls at appropriate time: ECI

7 hours ago

IndiGo aircraft’s tail touches runway at Mumbai Airport

8 hours ago

New Delhi: Former Janata Dal (U) president Sharad Yadav, who has been disqualified as an MP by the Rajya Sabha chairman, cannot draw his salary, allowances or perks entitled to him as a Member of Parliament, the Supreme Court said Thursday. The top court modified the Delhi High Court order passed last year by which it had allowed Yadav to draw salary, allowances and perks till the pendency of his plea challenging the disqualification as an MP from Rajya Sabha.
A vacation bench of Justices A K Goel and Ashok Bhushan, however, allowed him to retain his official bungalow, as ordered by the high court December 15 last year.
The apex court’s decision came on a plea by JD (U)’s Rajya Sabha MP Ramchandra Prasad Singh challenging the Delhi High Court’s interim order.
At the outset, the counsel appearing for Yadav said that he is ready to forgo his salary, allowances and perks but he should be allowed to retain his official residence, till the pendency of petition in high court.
The bench then asked Yadav’s counsel how the high court could direct payment of salary and perks when he has been disqualified by the chairman of the Upper House.
“We will modify the order of the high court directing payment of salary, allowances and perks. As far as official residence is concerned that part we are not touching and he can stay there till the pendency of his petition,” the bench said.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar appearing for Singh said that the order of the high court should be modified as the high court cannot ask for payment of salary and retention of his official residence at New Delhi here as he has been disqualified by the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 4, last year.
Kumar said Yadav’s petition pending before the high court should be directed to be decided expeditiously by a division bench.
The bench then directed that the petition be heard in July by a division bench of the high court and matter be decided expeditiously.