KTS Tulsi appears in 3-hour battle for Cong MP’s facing eviction notices

The Delhi High Court seems to have become a commonplace for political battles. After the infamous AAP-Centre spat that dominated headlines not so long ago, this time it was the Congress versus Centre fight that hogged the limelight..Recently, eviction orders had been issued by the Ministry of Urban Development to Congress politicians and Rajya Sabha MPs Ambika Soni and Kumari Selja to vacate their premises as they had ceased to be Union Ministers..Soni and Selja, who were staying at 22, Akbar Road and 7, Motilal Nehru Marg bungalows respectively, had challenged this order and successfully obtained a stay from Delhi High Court’s Justice Mukta Gupta..The plea filed by the two ministers had stated:.“Senior parliamentarians, who have held office as a Union Cabinet Minister, or Chief Minister of a State or a Governor or Speaker of the Lok Sabha, amongst others, are eligible according to the policy published on the website of the Rajya Sabha.”.Senior Advocate KTS Tulsi appeared for both the Petitioners and argued that the cancellation of allotment done by the Ministry was patently illegal..Tulsi submitted that the letter specifically mentioned that the allotment was valid till her retirement as a Rajya Sabha member which was due only in the year of 2020..“The right to accommodation arises out of the allotment order. On May 5th, 2015 the allotment was cancelled by the Ministry of Urban Development unilaterally, without furnishing any notice and the Petitioner was allotted a house from the general pool. The very purpose of constituting a parliamentary pool is frustrated if without having the permission of the House Committee, a house vested in Rajya Sabha pool is taken back and allotment is cancelled of a sitting member.”.Tulsi further went on to argue that the said incident was a clear case of stifling Opposition party by troubling them. When Justice Endlaw commented that simply because an Opposition party member did not get appropriate accommodation, it would not stop him from voicing his view, Tulsi stated that ‘this was a constitutional issue that required serious consideration.’.“This (allotment) is a significant privilege. It cannot be terminated as it is one of the perks given under the Rules of Procedure and conduct of business in Council of States. Ministerial powers are taken away the moment pools are created. Parliament cannot function if the executive is given the right to roughshod over such matters. This action will harm their independence.”.“….Even licensed property can’t be taken away in a manner that restricts my role as an Opposition member. The state action should be shown as fair under Article 14 and not have an ulterior motive. So many bungalows have been retained beyond their entitlement, why am I being singled out? Because am vocal in my views against the government? Art 14 doesn’t talk about negative equality. Even the Rajya Sabha Secretariat had sent them a notice of privilege. They have said that the house committee hasn’t taken any such decision.”.ASG Sanjay Jain appearing for the Union stated that even for the sake of argument, if one could assume that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat had complete discretion over house allocations, the fact of the matter remained that only former union ministers were entitled to Type VIII bungalows and since the Petitioners were not holding those posts anymore, their entitlement was ‘limited to Type VII houses.’.Dismissing all allegations of this being a political battle, Jain also added,.“MPs can very well function from a Type VII bungalow also. Merely because Government of India/Ministry of Urban Development transferred the accommodation to RS Secretariat, it does not not create the status of licensor to the Rajya Sabha. Primary Licensor remains the Union..…. Erstwhile (UPA) govt had earlier filed an affidavit in a different matter before the Supreme Court where they themselves stated that house allotment disputes are not a breach of parliamentary privilege. So why are they accusing us of cherry-picking them or victimising them now?”.Interestingly, when asked to confirm their stand on the issue (the Court had earlier sought the reply of Rajya Sabha along with the Centre and other parties) the counsel appearing for Rajya Sabha made a statement in open court that the Petitioner was not entitled to a Type VIII Bungalow..After witnessing lengthy arguments from both sides that went on for three hours, Justice Endlaw reserved his judgment on the issue.