2024-04-05 11:25:58
New Delhi: The Supreme Court refused to hear the petition in which the petitioner had said that there should be a cooling off period for public servants to contest elections. In the petition filed in the Supreme Court, it was said that as soon as a public servant leaves his job, he should be stopped from contesting elections and a cooling off period should be fixed for the public servant.
Supreme Court rejected the petition
The Supreme Court refused to hear the petition, after which the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court rejected the petition, allowing it to be withdrawn. The Supreme Court bench led by Justice Surya Kant, however, allowed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in this matter.
Former MP had filed the petition
A petition was filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 on behalf of former MP GV Harsh Kumar. It was said in the petition that a cooling off period should be fixed for public servants. For this, a request was made to implement the 2012 recommendation of the Election Commission and the recommendation of the Civil Service Reform Report July 2004 Committee. Under this, a request was made that a public servant or civil servant should be prevented from contesting elections or being given a party ticket immediately after retirement or resignation and a cooling off period should be fixed for contesting elections. The petitioner had also pleaded that if a person who has been a public servant or a government servant is selected, he should get only one pension.
The petitioner’s arguments did not hold.
In the petition filed in the Supreme Court, it was said that a recommendation in this regard was made two decades ago but it has not been implemented. For this reason, many bureaucrats, judges and other public servants are contesting elections immediately after their retirement or leaving the job and there is no cooling off period for them. The petitioner also said that tickets are offered to public servants who illegally benefit some political parties. The Supreme Court refused to hear the petition.