Having first sought the Centre’s response on September 3, 2026, the Supreme Court heard the PIL on constitutional functionaries perks after resigning to avoid removal again on Thursday, when the Solicitor General told the Bench that the petitioner appeared to have made out a case.
New Delhi: A plea to deny post-resignation perks and amenities to constitutional functionaries, including judges, who step down to avoid removal proceedings will now draw a formal reply from the Union government, with the Supreme Court on Thursday allowing an intervention application and directing the Centre to file its counter-affidavit in the public interest litigation [Pratik Vira v. Union of India].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter on November 5, 2026.
What the petition says
The petition says constitutional functionaries who face removal or impeachment often resign instead, and go on enjoying the perks and facilities of their former offices. It adds that citizens generally perceive such resignations as a way to frustrate removal proceedings, and that the practice runs against the rule of law, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
It points to specific rules that bar non-constitutional functionaries from resigning while departmental proceedings are pending. Constitutional functionaries, it argues, stand on a higher footing and must show probity by completing their tenure and, where required, facing removal proceedings. The plea asks for a declaration that any provision entitling a constitutional functionary to perks, amenities and facilities after a resignation tendered to avoid removal is unconstitutional.
The Centre’s first response
Appearing for the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench that the petitioner, Pratik Vira, appeared to have made out a case, and undertook to obtain instructions and file a response. The Court had first sought the Centre’s response when the plea came up on September 3, 2026.
The Court has not ruled on the merits, and the Centre’s counter-affidavit is awaited.
What rides on the answer
Resignations ahead of removal proceedings have recurred in recent years, and the question of what benefits follow one has had no direct judicial answer. With the Centre’s first stance being that the plea appears to have merit, the issue looks likelier to be examined on substance than dismissed at the threshold. How the Court eventually weighs the right to resign against the integrity of removal mechanisms could affect judges and other constitutional office-holders alike.
Case Title: Pratik Vira v. Union of India
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: November 5, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Sangramsingh R Bhonsle, Pushkara A Bhonsle, Sneha S Bhonsle, Sanmitra YP, Shruti Sharma and Bhramjyot Singh for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union of India