June 1, 2006

By Gyan Pathak

The manner in which our Parliamentarians pass various Bills is indicative of the fact that they do not think much on them before their passage in the Houses, what to talk about a careful thinking in comprehensive manner. The Office of Profit Bill in also not an exception. They usually take it granted that the President shall approve them, because they know the fact that the President has no option, but ultimately giving his assent to any Bill if the members of the Parliament desire to get the Bill approved. However, there is a catch. The President can send any Bill back to the Parliament for reconsideration if he finds something wrong in it. It precisely happened with the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006 commonly known as the Office of Profit Bill.

Now our members of the Parliament from the ruling UPA are seemingly adamant on not reconsidering the Bill in the context in which the President has given suggestions to. Many of them have openly declared that they will send the Bill back to the President for his assent. The connotation is that they are not ready to think over it.

It is despite the fact that the Bill has never been properly discussed in the Parliament which was passed in both the Houses, in great haste. And now, when the President tells them to reconsider it in comprehensive manner, they brazenly are refusing to do so. It is certainly painful for the country especially because of the brazenly attitude of the majority of our parliamentarians who are in the habit of ignoring even the valid objections raised inside and outside the Parliament, and passing even important Bills without much deliberations and in great haste too. Only few of them care for the consequences, but they are crushed by the “unthinking” majority who just follow the dictates of their leadership who most of the times decide something in whimsical manner and push the Bills, showing their “might is right” way of life.

What the President has asked on which the leaders of the UPA including the leaders of the left parties supporting the government feel outraged? Why are they creating impressions and getting editorial published in newspapers against the President? Why the guilty people are tying to convince us that the innocent suggestions of the President are not worth considering? These are such questions that are not comprehensible for the common people.

After all, the President of India, A P J Abdul Kalam had to return this Bill to the Parliament for reconsideration because it is well known fact that it has never been considered properly in the Parliament, and one can see the proof by going through the debates itself. He disposed the file within a week, which the President's office had received on May 25, 2006 and returned this Bill to the Parliament on May 31, 2006. It is indeed a praiseworthy quickness given the fact that the files in our country move at snails pace and they are even kept for months and years at one table.

Even the files relating to the complaints for disqualification against our 46 MPs and 229 MLAs on account of this office of profit issue are lying with the Election Commission for months. The allegations are even against Sonia Gandhi and other big shots of various political parties including the left, whose one of the leaders and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha Mr Somnath Chatterjee brazenly told the country that their members will not resign from the offices of profit despite the fact that it is illegal. Sonia's resignation was eyewash, Samajvadi Party leader Mulayam Singh says, because she is still holding office of profit. Mulayam Singh is right when we consider the facts on the bases of the two legal terms “office of profit”, and “office of profit under the Government”. It is strange, and the reasons best known to the Election Commission, why it took swift action against an MP from Samajwadi Party Ms Jaya Bacchan while sitting pretty on other files. It certainly smacks favouritism. In the meantime our ruling alliance came forward with a Bill to protect the offenders. Many posts were excluded from the “office of profit” category while ignoring the basic question as to why one person should be given many posts in a democracy when we have numbers of other well intentioned competent persons.

It is worth mentioning here that Delhi High court has already issued notices to the Government of India and the Election Commission on the PIL filed against their inactions. According to the provisions of the Constitution of India, the President is supposed to take action against the Legislators on the basis of recommendations of the Election Commission that is sitting on the files for months.

In this backdrop, the President had no option but to send back the Bill to the Parliament for reconsideration mentioning in the letter exactly how he wanted it to be discussed. Mr Kalam wanted this bill to be reconsidered on two grounds.

(a) in the context of the settled interpretation of the expression 'Office of Profit' in Article 102 of the Constitution, and
(b) the underlying constitutional principles therein.

If we read his letter further, he categorically suggested, while re-considering among other things the Parliament may specifically address (i) evolution of generic and comprehensive criteria which are just, fair and reasonable and can be applied across all States and Union Territories in a clear and transparent manner.

Thus, this letter not only specifically mentions Article 102 but also indicates Article 191 of the Constitution of India. Former is related to disqualification of membership from the Parliament and the later to Legislative Assemblies and Councils of States.

What is wrong if the President wanted the Parliament to evolve “generic and comprehensive criteria which are just, fair, and reasonable and can be applied across all the States and Union Territories in a clear and transparent manner”?

And what if he wanted the Parliamentarians to discuss “the implication of including for exemption the names of offices the holding of which is alleged to disqualify a member and in relation to which petitions for disqualification are already under process by the competent authority.”

Then there was a controversy over the time of implementation of the passed Bill, because it provides for implementation from retrospective effect. Our parliamentarians made this provision to protect the persons from disqualification who illegally held offices of profit in the past. Why should there be a law to save the guilty?

In this backdrop it was obvious that the President wanted our parliamentarians to discuss the “soundness and propriety of the law in making the applicability of the amendment retrospectively.

Now our parliamentarians should discuss the Bill afresh in a comprehensive manner for the larger interest of the country. They should not make it a prestige issue. (EOM)