The Supreme Court today directed the government to review its ‘discriminatory provision’ in relation to providing state facilities to former high office-holders.

A three-member full bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Damodar Prasad Sharma and Justices Prakash Osti and Bharat Bahadur Karki issued the order in the name of authorities — the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary and Federal Affairs — to respect the principle of equality with judicial perspective while providing state facilities.

“There is a need to review the discriminatory provision with judicial as well as equality perspective,” the bench stated in its order issued in response to a public interest litigation filed by anti-corruption activist Bharat Mani Jangam and advocate Chandra Lal Shrestha.

The petitioners had challenged an ordinance promulgated by then government led by former prime minister Baburam Bhattarai to provide state facilities to former bigwigs.

In July 2012, the government had issued the ordinance to provide state facilities to former prime ministers, former deputy prime ministers, former home ministers, former speakers and former chief justices, but only to those who had served after 1990. But the apex court had stayed its implementation. The bench, however, annulled the writ, saying that the ordinance had already become ineffective because the government that issued the ordinance was dissolved after six months of its issuance.

On July 26, 2012 the petitions had moved the Supreme Court, saying that the provision to provide perks to former high office holders was against the apex court ruling in which it had asked to stop such facility and had called the provision a fraud, which ‘was against the law’.

The petitioners had claimed that providing such facilities for lifetime to a person who once held a higher position only for a short period was tantamount to fraudulent practices and sought an apex court order to declare the ordinance null and void.

“The move is against public welfare as the country owes a debt of over Rs 509 to foreign countries,” the petitioners had said.