The Central government on Thursday, November 5, told the Supreme Court that a public interest litigation seeking to deny post-resignation perks and amenities to constitutional functionaries, including judges, who quit to avoid removal proceedings appears to have merit, Bar and Bench reported.

Source: Bar and Bench

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, told a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the petitioner, Pratik Vira, appeared to have made out a case, and undertook to file the government's response.

Source: LiveLaw

The court allowed an intervention application in the matter and directed the Union government to file its counter-affidavit. The court has not ruled on the merits of the plea, and the Centre's formal reply is awaited.

Source: LawChakra

What the petition asks for

The petition, Pratik Vira v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 1086/2026), argues that constitutional functionaries facing removal or impeachment proceedings often resign instead, and in doing so continue to enjoy the perks, amenities and facilities attached to their former offices.

It seeks a declaration that any provision entitling such a functionary to perks and facilities after a resignation tendered to avoid removal is unconstitutional, saying it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

The Supreme Court had first sought the Centre's response in the case on September 3, 2026, when it issued notice on the plea. Thursday's hearing was the first time the government stated its position in court, with the Solicitor General conceding that the petitioner's case appeared arguable.

The matter will now proceed after the Union files its counter-affidavit, when the court is expected to examine whether resignation should shield a constitutional functionary from the consequences that removal would have carried.