New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said natural resources and public goods like official residences were property that "belongs to the people" as it struck down an Uttar Pradesh amendment that allowed former chief ministers to stay on in government bungalows.

The bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, however, clarified that its judgment was limited to only interpreting Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981.

It was not determining similar provisions in other states as they had chosen not to participate in the proceedings, the court said.

The bench said once a person demits a public office, there is "nothing to distinguish them from the common man".

"The 'Doctrine of Equality' which emerges from the concepts of justice, fairness must guide the state in the distribution/allocation of the same. The chief minister, once he/she demits the office, is at par with the common citizen, though by virtue of the office held, he/she may be entitled to security and other protocols," the court said.

The bench upheld a plea by Lok Prahari, an NGO headed by former IAS officer S.N. Shukla, that had challenged the validity of Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Act.

The 2016 amendment entitled former chief ministers to lifelong government accommodation. "Undoubtedly, Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act would have the effect of creating a separate class of citizens for conferment of benefits by way of distribution of public property on the basis of the previous public office held by them. Once such persons demit the public office earlier held by them there is nothing to distinguish them from the common man," Justice Gogoi, writing the judgment, said.

The court rejected the state's contention that allocation of government bungalows to constitutional functionaries was beyond the scope of judicial review. "(It would) be clearly subject to judicial review on the touchstone of Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution of India," it said. "This is particularly so as such bungalows constitute public property which by itself is scarce and meant for use of current holders of public offices."

The court said that in August 2016 it had struck down a similar amendment introduced in 1997 but the government had still come up with a fresh one. "The... legislation, therefore, can very well be construed to be an attempt to overreach the judgment of this court," the bench said.