Fundamental Rights of a few can be repealed for the good of people at large: Telangana High Court

Hyderabad: The High Court Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan hearing on a writ petition regarding the deferment of pension refused to stay the ordinance no.2 issued by the Governor of Telangana. The power invoked by the Governor is under Article 213 of the Constitution and the Governor of the State has ample power to issue an ordinance, and held Fundamental Rights of the citizens can be taken away for the good of people at large.

The High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy hearing on a writ petition filed by retired DFO G.Raman Goud hailing from Nizamabad, aggrieved over deferment of 25 per cent pension to pensioners. The petitioner alleged that the issuance of impugned Ordinance No 2 dated June 16 by the Governor of Telangana State as published in Telangana Gazette by The Secretary Government of Telangana Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Law Department as being arbitrary illegal and against the provisions of Central Act namely, the Disaster Management Act 2005 as also against the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

The CJ Bench opined that It is a clash between the rights of a few individuals (3-lakh odd pensioners) to the rights of a large number of the public during an emergency. If the decision is in the public interest, then the fundamental rights can be abrogated.

Counsel for the petitioner Satyam Reddy says the Governor cannot issue an ordinance when there is no emergency declared. Moreover, an ordinance can be issued by the President of India and not by the Governor of the State, he added. Non-payment of pension to 3-lakh odd pensioners is violating the fundamental rights of the pensioners under Article 21 and the so-called emergency is already covered by the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and it is a Central Act, petitioner counsel said.

Chief Justice Chauhan after hearing the contents of the petitioner counsel observed that the Governor is exercising her legislative power when the house or legislature is not in session. Therefore, like any other legislation, any ordinance can be challenged on very limited rules and she is competent enough to pass such an ordinance as the House is not in session. Moreover, if the Governor is of the opinion that the circumstances require the promulgation of an Ordinance since the Legislature is not in session, the Governor has ample power to promulgate such an Ordinance.

CJ Chauhan pointed out that Article 213 does not require emergency, according to the situations and circumstances of the State if the Governor feels and satisfies to issue an ordinance, the Governor has the power to issue an ordinance, CJ said. The Bench directed the Advocate General to file counter to the notice within three weeks and the matter was adjourned for three weeks.