State Legislature is competent to provide pensions and facilities to former members under Entry 38 of List II.

The petitioner, a registered society, filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 4, 5, 9, 13(3), 13(4), 15(2), 17-A, and Chapter VIII of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980

The petitioner argued that Article 195 of the Constitution only permits "salaries and allowances" for sitting members, and thus provisions for pensions to ex-members, family pensions to spouses, and various travel/medical facilities for non-members (companions/families) are ultra vires

The petitioner further contended that these benefits represent an arbitrary "loot of public money" and lack a traditional employer-employee relationship required for pensions

1. Whether the State Legislature has the legislative competence under Article 195 and Entry 38 of List II to provide for pensions and other facilities to former members and their families

2. Whether the impugned provisions of the Act of 1980 are manifesty arbitrary or discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution

Article 195 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the State Legislature to determine salaries and allowances for its members

Entry 38 of List II (State List) and Entry 42 of List II ("State pensions") of the Seventh Schedule

The term "allowances" is broad enough to cover pensions and that the wisdom of such legislative policy is generally non-justiciable

Tests of "intelligible differentia" and "rational nexus" under Article 14 to distinguish legislators as a unique constitutional class

The Court reasoned that the power under Article 195 is enabling and lacks restrictive language that would prohibit post-tenure benefits

By analyzing Entry 42 of List II, the Court found that the State has explicit exclusive power over "State pensions," confirming legislative competence over pensions for ex-MLAs

Regarding Article 14, the Court found that legislators form a distinct class due to their unique constitutional functions, meaning their treatment need not be identical to civil servants

The Court rejected the argument that "pension" requires an employer-employee relationship, citing Lok Prahari (2018) to include social security measures like old-age or disability payments

The Court emphasized judicial restraint, noting that the quantum of benefits is a matter of legislative policy and the Judiciary cannot act as a "second legislature" unless there is a patent constitutional violation

The writ petition was dismissed, and the validity of the Act of 1980 was upheld