Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12

The   purpose   of   this   analysis   is   limited   only   to   demonstrate that the Appellants starts on a wrong premise in assuming that the text of the Constitution contains express provisions mandating the payment   of   pension   in   connection   with   certain   constitutional offices.  

21.   The   fact   that   there   are   express   references  to   the   payment   of pension in the Constitution for certain Constitutional functionaries and not for others, in our opinion does not lead to the conclusion that   the   Constitution   by   its   silence   prohibits   the   payment   of pension to those constitutional functionaries. Each Constitutional office   holder   functions   in accordance with the  powers and duties entrusted   to   it   either   by   the   Constitution  or  the  laws  relevant  to their powers and duties. The framers of the Constitution believed that  certain offices  required a higher degree of protection, having regard to the greater degree of independence expected of the holders of their offices. The framers knew history and the attempts of the men in power to subjugate the holders of such offices. Safeguards, therefore,   were   provided   in   respect   of   the   various   aspects   of   the tenure   and   other   conditions   of   service   relevant   for   their   offices. When   it   comes   to   MPs,   however,   such   a   higher   degree   of constitutional protection is not obviously required as the authority to make laws rests only with them.