Political Diary
New Delhi, 21 June 2016
Office Of Profit
CUTTING NOSE TO
SPITE FACE
By Poonam I Kaushish
Cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face. This adage rang true
last week as Arvind Kejriwal's AAP Party got caught in a legal quagmire over
the appointment of 21 Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers on 13 March 2015. A
week later an RTI activist filed an innocuous complaint to President Pranab
Mukherjee that under the Delhi Members of
Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act 1997 there was no
provision of appointing a Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister and they held
an Office of Profit.
Last Monday the President rejected the Delhi Government’s amendment
to the Act which sought to make the position of Parliamentary Secretary in the
Delhi Assembly “retrospectively” exempt from the definition of “Office of
Profit”. Predictably, Kejriwal decided to brazen it out by asserting his MLAs
were not receiving any “pecuniary benefit, office space, car or
perks and are working for free” as Parliamentary Secretaries… and are his Government’s
“eyes, ears and hands”. Sic.
True,
the Assembly was within its powers to bring an amendment to the Act but given Delhi’s special status as a Union Territory,
a Bill passed by the Assembly is not considered an applicable “law” unless it
is passed by the Delhi Lieutenant Governor and the President of India.
At one level, there is no gainsaying that this
outrageous episode is an exercise in political one-upmanship between Modi’s BJP
and its bête noire Kejriwal’s AAP. The former drawing blood and the latter
battling for political supremacy.
Basically, even as the BJP and Congress quibble over
the ‘extra-judicial appointments’, the ball is in the Election Commission’s
court which has to decide whether the terms and conditions of appointment of
Parliamentary Secretaries constitutes an “Office of Profit.” Whereby, it can
nullify the appointments and call for fresh elections.
According to some Constitutional experts if what Kejriwal
avers is true, then AAP’s Parliamentary Secretaries office were not holding an
“Office of Profit” as there is no monetary benefit attached to the
appointments. Obversely, if their appointment letters included any monetary
benefit, the office would be considered an “Office of Profit”. Thus, “the offer
of pecuniary gain is the test, even if the person declines to take that
benefit”.
Besides, under Article 102(1)(a) and Article 191(1)(a) of
the Constitution, a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for
being, a member of Parliament or of a Legislative Assembly/Council if he holds
an “Office of Profit” under the Central or any State Government, other than an
office declared not to disqualify its holder by a law passed by the Parliament
or State Legislature. The Delhi MLA (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1997 did
not include the post of Parliamentary Secretary as an “exempted post”.
Questionably, is it going to be the end of the road for the
21 AAP MLAs in the office-of-profit controversy? Undeniably,
the issue is not legal, but primarily political and Kejriwal should take it
head on. The AAP MLAs should resign and seek re-election. Just as Sonia Gandhi
did in 2006 when she resigned from the Lok Sabha and sought re-election,
instead of fighting a legal battle on
whether her position as Chairperson National Advisory Council was an office of
profit or not.
The Supreme Court too has underscored that the
issue was not whether an MP or MLA of an office in question received any
remuneration but was potentially in a position to receive some remuneration. The
word profit connotes the idea of pecuniary gain. If there is really a gain, its quantum or
amount would not be material; but the amount of money receivable by a person in
connection with the office he holds may be material in deciding whether the
office really carries any profit.
Adding that if the Government had the power to
appoint and remove a person, then the office is an office of profit even though
the person is paid out of the funds of the Corporation. On the other hand, if
the Government does not possess this power, whatever control the Government may
have over the person` in other matters, would not suffice for the purpose.
Consequently, even from a purely
legal/technical point of view, the MLAs are in violation of the norm against
legislators holding any office of profit under the Government. Interestingly, “office of profit” is
not defined anywhere. Courts have been
passing judgments wherein a vague pattern has emerged. The philosophy behind
this prohibition is that MPs or MLAs should be free to function independently
of the Executive.
By accepting an office of profit, theoretically they become
subject to pressure by the Executive. Arguably, if
nearly half the House becomes part of the Executive, then the business of
legislators holding the Executive accountable suffers. Certainly, not a happy
state of affairs.
Besides, it does not behove any Government to
try and overcome the limitation on the size of the Council of Ministers, 10 per
cent of the strength of the House by accommodating legislators in a
quasi-ministerial position by giving them positions such as Parliamentary
Secretaries.
According to Constitutional expert Durga Das Basu, “The
principle underlying this disqualification is that there should be no conflict
between the duties of a member of the Legislature as such and his private interests
and that the indebtedness of a member to Government is incompatible with his
independence as a representative of the people”
Be that as it may, the moot point is: has the term ‘office
of profit or office of no profit’ become another facet of corruption? Has it provided a legal seal to bribery of
our Right Honourables through arbitrary fiats declaring offices of profit as
non-profit? Enabling MPs and MLA’s to enjoy juicy lollipops of power? Wherein one may not take any salary but enjoy
royal perks, more than making up for it? Who needs a salary!
Instances are a plenty at the Centre and the States wherein
MPs or MLAs who cannot be accommodated in the Cabinet are compensated by being
appointed as Chairman’s of various corporations and commissions enjoying the
status of Cabinet or Minister of State.
Look at the absurdity. A MP as a member of the Air India
board takes no salary but enjoys amazing perks ---- unlimited first class
travel and entertainment. Or, when legislators as members of various Standing
Committees get public undertakings to pick up the tab for their five-star
hotels, shopping, gifts et al.
The situation is worse in the States. The MLA-Chairmen lord
over State Boards and Commissions and merrily convert them into their private
fiefdoms of mini-Ministries with full staff and freedom to poke their noses
into all deals --- buying, selling, price fixing etc.
Clearly, the latest controversy on the Office of Profit saga
is a classic case of ‘100 chuhe kha ke
billi hajj ko chali’, as this applies to all Parties, BJP, Congress, JD(U)
Samajwadi, BSP, RJD, BJD etc. It has
spotlighted the recurring abuse by the powers-that-be of its authority to
distribute patronage at will by nullifying the basic object of Article 102.
Thus, it is time for the Government to desist from
appointing legislators to ‘offices of profit’ and merrily promoting legalized
corruption. Parliament needs to debate the issue threadbare. Private profit
must not be permitted in the name of public service. ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|