Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cited several landmark cases that establish the inviolability of salary and pension as fundamental rights:

• Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971): Affirmed that pensions are a right and cannot be withheld by mere executive orders.
• State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (1976): Reinforced that the grant of pension does not depend on governmental discretion.
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Recognized the right to livelihood as part of the right to life under Article 21.
• Hindustan Times v. State of U.P. (2003): Interpreted 'law' in Article 300-A to mean statutory provisions, not executive orders.
• State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1995): Emphasized that public interest litigations should not be used for arbitrary reasons.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's stance against unauthorized financial decrees affecting fundamental rights.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the principle that salary and pension are not mere privileges but constitute a person's property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution. The deferment without statutory backing or a declared financial emergency lacked constitutional validity. The government orders:

• Did not reference any specific legal provision authorizing such deferments beyond the Disaster Management Act, which itself did not confer the power to delay salaries or pensions.
• Excluded frontline departments (Medical & Health, Police, Sanitation) from deferment without a justifiable reason.
• Failed to follow due process in accordance with established service and pension rules.

Furthermore, the court held that withholding salaries and pensions impinged upon the right to livelihood, an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. The absence of an authoritative legal framework for deferment rendered the executive orders unconstitutional.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent by clarifying that executive orders cannot supersede statutory provisions, especially concerning fundamental rights. It reinforces the notion that:

• Government obligations to employees regarding salary and pension payments are sacrosanct and must be upheld unless justified by clear legislative authority.
• Public Interest Litigations (PILs) remain a robust mechanism to safeguard the rights of citizens, especially when the state acts beyond its legal mandate.
• States cannot bypass constitutional safeguards by issuing directives that adversely affect fundamental rights, even under exigent circumstances like a pandemic.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when dealing with unauthorized government financial actions, ensuring stricter adherence to constitutional and statutory provisions.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Over time, the judiciary has interpreted this to include the right to livelihood, meaning that essential means of earning a living are protected under this article.

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India

Article 300-A protects an individual's right to property, stating that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law. This means that any government action affecting property rights must be based on legal provisions, not mere executive discretion.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

PIL allows individuals or groups to approach the court in matters where the public interest is at stake, even if they do not have a direct personal stake in the case. It serves as a tool to ensure justice for those who may not have the means to seek it themselves.

Authority of Law

This refers to power derived from legislative or statutory provisions. Executive orders or directives lack the authority of law unless they are backed by such legislative powers. Hence, actions like deferment of salaries must be grounded in statutory authority to be valid.