New Delhi, August 3, 2025 — A growing controversy over former Members of Parliament (MPs) receiving pensions from both their parliamentary and state legislative tenures has sparked heated debate, with critics arguing that the practice places an undue burden on taxpayers. The issue, raised through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the Lucknow-based NGO Lok Prahari, questions the fairness of ex-MPs drawing dual pensions, especially when many are affluent, while defenders of the policy cite the unique demands of public service.
Under the Salary, Allowances, and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, ex-MPs are entitled to a monthly pension of Rs 31,000, with an additional Rs 2,500 for each year served beyond five years, as revised in March 2025. Similarly, former Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) or Legislative Councils (MLCs) receive pensions under state-specific laws, such as the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan, Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam. These state pensions vary but can range from Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000 monthly, depending on the state and tenure. Notably, there is no legal restriction preventing ex-MPs who also served as MLAs or MLCs from claiming both pensions, leading to cumulative benefits that can exceed Rs 50,000 monthly in some cases.
The Case Against Dual Pensions
Lok Prahari’s PIL, previously dismissed by the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court in 2018, argued that dual pensions violate Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution, as they favor a small group of affluent politicians over ordinary taxpayers. The NGO highlighted that 82% of MPs are crorepatis, with many holding substantial assets, yet they continue to receive lifelong pensions and perks, including free first-class AC train travel, medical treatment under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), and up to eight annual air journeys for ex-MPs and their spouses. Critics, including RTI activist PP Kapoor, note that the cost of ex-MP pensions has risen significantly, reaching Rs 70.50 crore annually by 2018-19, a 21.5% increase from 2017-18.
The argument against dual pensions centers on equity and fiscal responsibility. “MPs contest elections to serve the public, not to secure lifelong financial security at taxpayers’ expense,” said Lok Prahari’s counsel, S.N. Shukla. He pointed out that civil servants, who serve for decades, are typically limited to a single pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, unless specific exceptions apply, such as military and civilian service combinations. The lack of a mechanism to offset or withhold dual pensions for ex-MPs, unlike rules for other public servants, has fueled accusations of privilege. Social media posts on X have echoed this sentiment, with users questioning why politicians receive such benefits while ordinary pensioners face delays and cuts.
Defense of Dual Pensions
The central government, represented by former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal in 2018, defended the policy, arguing that MPs’ pensions are justified to maintain their dignity post-tenure, given their need to “nurse constituencies” and contest elections every five years. Supporters, including some BJP and Congress leaders, contend that MPs face unique financial pressures, such as frequent travel and public engagement, which justify dual pensions if they served in both state and national legislatures. The Parliamentary Pensions Act and state laws treat these roles as distinct, with separate contributions deducted during their tenures, they argue.
The government also notes that pensions are contributory, with MPs paying into the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF) during their term, similar to state schemes. In 2018, the Finance Act amended the 1954 Act to link MP pensions to the cost inflation index, ensuring periodic revisions, as seen in the 2023 increase from Rs 25,000 to Rs 31,000. Defenders argue that denying dual pensions could discourage capable individuals from entering public service, especially in states with lower MLA pensions.
No Evidence of Pension Withholding
Despite public debate, there is no evidence that the government plans to withhold or cancel dual pensions for ex-MPs who also served as MLAs or MLCs. A 2019 viral claim suggesting pensions were canceled for ex-MPs with assets over Rs 10 crore was debunked, as no such rule exists in the 1954 Act. The Central Pension Accounting Office has also clarified that it lacks mechanisms to track dual pension recipients, complicating any potential reforms.
Proposed Reforms and Challenges
The Supreme Court’s 2018 dismissal of Lok Prahari’s PIL upheld Parliament’s authority to legislate MP pensions under Article 106, but it acknowledged the need for an independent mechanism to set salaries and pensions to avoid conflicts of interest. Countries like the UK have addressed this through bodies like the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), which oversees MP pensions to ensure transparency. In India, however, MPs retain significant control over their benefits, raising ethical questions.
Reform advocates suggest capping total pension benefits, introducing asset-based means testing, or aligning MP pensions with civil service rules, which limit dual pensions in most cases. However, political resistance remains strong, as seen in Kenya, where MPs united to push for enhanced pensions despite public opposition. In India, the Modi government’s 2014 decision to extend pensions to all MPs, regardless of tenure, further entrenched these benefits.
Public and Political Reactions
The issue has gained traction amid India’s economic challenges, with opposition parties like Congress accusing the government of favoring elite politicians while neglecting ordinary pensioners. BJP leaders, however, argue that pension reforms require broader consensus, given MPs’ role in lawmaking. Posts on X reflect public frustration, with hashtags like #StopPensionToMPs trending sporadically, calling for an end to what many see as an outdated privilege.
Looking Ahead
As India approaches the 2026 state elections, the dual pension debate is likely to intensify, with activists urging the government to prioritize fiscal equity. While the SIT probe into unrelated cases like Prajwal Revanna’s has drawn attention to political accountability, the pension issue underscores broader questions of governance and privilege. Without legislative action or judicial intervention, ex-MPs will continue to draw dual pensions, fueling public discontent in a nation grappling with economic inequality.
