Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Thursday 'reserved order' in Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha's appeal challenging the trial court’s order which payed way for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to evict him from his Type VII government bungalow.

At the outset, the bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani asked the ASG, “Under Section 80 CPC, are you saying you are a government or public officer? Is the Rajya Sabha Secretariat a person or an entity? You have to take a clear stand on this. See the question of applicability of S. 80 is fundamental. What is that you claim to be? I want a straight answer to this”.

To this, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee on behalf of Rajya Sabha Secretariat responded, “A Public Officer, that’s the stand we have taken. All action has been taken by the public officer. I’ll do it from the pleadings, as I cannot go beyond this.”

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Chadha argued that the defendant here could not be the government.

On the question as to why the Rajya Sabha Secretariat can be the government, Singhvi contended, “Public Officer means nothing but an employee of the government. Read an exhaustive definition mentioned in the CPC. Obviously, he is the public officer, representing his boss. This is an employee of the government as understood by S. 80 CPC”.

Taking note of the rebuttals, the court ‘reserved order’ in the appeal. The court directed the defendant, Rajya Sabha Secretariat to file its brief written synopsis by tomorrow evening.

"Hearing in the appeal is complete. Judgment reserved", the court ordered. 

On October 11, the senior counsel for the AAP leader contended that Chadha is a victim of “selective targeting” as he has been a vocal opposition member of Parliament. The senior counsel had said that Chadha is the only sitting lawmaker in the Rajya Sabha ever to have been sought to be evicted from the bungalow allotted to him.

He had submitted that the allotment of accommodation is an exercise of guided discretion and is made after taking into account the circumstances peculiar to the MP concerned, and in the exercise of this discretion, out of 245 sitting MPs in the Rajya Sabha, 115 have been granted accommodation above their ‘default’ entitlement.

On the contrary, ASG Banerjee had argued that Chadha cannot seek negative equality over holding government property. The negative equality principle implies that if the State has wrongly granted a benefit to one person, another cannot claim a similar benefit just because of that, he told. 

The ASG had contended that if it were held that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat does not fall under the definition of "public officer" under Section 80 CPC, it would have "greater repercussions" on the law in the future.

Trial Court Proceedings 

On October 5, Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik vacated an earlier order that stopped the Rajya Sabha Secretariat from evicting Chadha from his government accommodation. The judge had said that Chadha had “no vested right” to continue to occupy his government bungalow after the cancellation of its allotment.

"Plaintiff (Chadha) cannot claim that he has an absolute right to continue to occupy the accommodation during his entire tenure as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The allotment of Government accommodation is only a privilege given to the plaintiff and he has no vested right to continue to occupy the same even after the cancellation of allotment," the court had said.

In June 2023, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat was directed by the court not to evict him from a Type-7 bungalow in Lutyens’ Delhi, which is usually allotted to lawmakers who are former ministers, chief ministers or governors, till the pendency of his application and without following the due process of law. ".. the argument that the accommodation once made to a Member of Parliament cannot be cancelled under any circumstances during the entire tenure of Member of Parliament deserves rejection," the court had clarified in the order.

Emphasising that Chadha had "no vested right in the accommodation and his status is akin to that of a licensee", the court had said that it "could be revoked by the competent authority at any time."

Earlier, Chadha had moved the trial court, stating the cancellation of the allotment of his Type VII bungalow on Pandara Road, New Delhi, did not follow due process of law, was “arbitrary”, and that “no reasons were provided” for it.

The AAP leader had claimed that for removing an MP from the bungalow, reasons must be provided in the letter of allotment. While appealing against the eviction, Chadha had prayed that he was residing with his parents.

Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat