The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine if Presidents and Prime Ministers are entitled to government bungalows after leaving office and said it will hear the central government's law officers on the sensitive issue.

Mail Today reported on January 5 that Gopal Subramanium, the amicus curiae - senior lawyer appointed by the SC to assist it in illegal occupation of bungalows case - had suggested that not only ex-CMs, but former Presidents and PMs too should not get government bungalows.

The court is hearing a PIL filed by NGO Lok Prahari against the Uttar Pradesh government for allotting government flats to former CMs despite a specific judgment of the top court in August 2016 holding it "bad in law".

The amicus has submitted that this court should expand the scope of this hearing to include former Prime Ministers and Presidents too and not just the UP legislation pertaining to former chief ministers.

"We propose to hear the law officers of the central government in this regard and also of the states where such legislation has been enacted to allow government houses to those who have retired from government office," Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.

"It is submitted that once an office-holder (President, PM, CM, etc) demits office, he or she ceases to be an occupant of that public office and is, therefore, shorn of all its adornments. He or she reverts to being a citizen of India, and ought to be granted no greater privilege than that accorded to other citizens of India, except for the minimal courtesies of protocol, pension and other regular post-retirement benefits," Subramanium's note says.

"Public property is not to be frittered away to private citizens, notwithstanding the high offices they may have previously occupied. Any provision of law that grants accommodation to the former holders of public office is ultra vires the Constitution as breaching Article 14 (right to equality)," the petition further says.

On August 23, the bench had appointed Subramanium as amicus curiae, noting that it needed assistance as the issue raised in the petition was of "considerable public importance" and once it is re-affirmed that former CMs of UP cannot hold on to government bungalows, it may also have an impact on similar legislation in force in different states and also central legislation.

In its verdict in August 2016, the SC had held that allotment of government bungalows to former CMs was bad in law and they should hand over possession of the bungalows occupied by them.

Following the SC verdict, the then Akhilesh Yadav government amended the UP Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to allow the former CMs to occupy government bungalows.

The PIL alleged the amendments were brought to defeat the Supreme Court's order.