The Tribune’s editorial vis-à-vis imbroglio of the position of the Parliamentary Secretaries in NCTD

The Tribune’s editorial “AAP pays for its duplicity: Kejriwal follows the Badal model” (15 June) (available at http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/editorials/aap-pays-for-its-duplicity/251737.html) is utterly shocking and highly misleading, and to put it in AAP’s plain and blunt characteristic style “it’s a pack of white lies”. Firstly, it justifies the refusal of the President (Constitutionally speaking the Central Government) to give assent to the Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) (Amendment) Bill, 2015 on the premise that no such exemptions can be granted retrospectively. However, history belies this contention in toto. During Sheila Dixit regime, the similar law in 2006 had exempted 14 posts/offices from the purview of “office of profit” with retrospective effect from 9 September 1997 and thereby had saved 18 Congress MLAs from disqualification. During UPA-1 regime, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006 had excluded 45 posts/offices, including the office of Chairperson, National Advisory Council, held by Members of Parliament from the operation of Article 102 with retrospective effect from the year 1959. A challenge was put by an NGO the ‘Consumer Education and Research Society’ in the Supreme Court against the said Parliamentary amending law and the Supreme Court in 2009 upheld the power of legislature to pass such law retrospectively. Even in States viz. Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh similar laws have been passed in the past.  Secondly, the GNCTD’s order dated March 13, 2015 whereby Parliamentary Secretaries were appointed explicitly states that “Parliamentary Secretaries will not be eligible for any remuneration or any perks of any kind, from the government. However, they may use government transport for official purposes and office space in the minister’s office would be provided to them to facilitate their work”. Conversely, in other States the appointee enjoyed/enjoys the status of Cabinet Minister or Minister of State with associated remuneration, perk and entitlement viz. salary, allowance, luxury car with police escort vehicle, office in the secretariat with staff, fully furnished government house and other facilities in tune with conferred status/rank The Supreme Court way back in 1954 in the case of Ravanna Subanna vs. G.S. Kaggeerappa had  held that even the remuneration which the person gets while holding the office to enable him to carry out day to day expenses (i.e. compensatory in nature)  should not be considered as accruing any profit to holder. Thirdly, it is wrongly set-out that other states have no Delhi-like law on dual office inasmuch as the Article 191 of the Constitutions specifically mandates that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder. Section 15 of the Govt of NCTD Act, 1991 prescribing similar disqualification for Delhi MLAs is nothing but a replica of Article 191 of the Constitution. Fourthly, even very thinly populated states like Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya (current population of Delhi is about 2 crores) have 24, 19, 18 such positions respectively. The record needs to be put straight accordingly.

READ FULL PIECE FOR MORE INFORMATION “THE IMBROGLIO OF THE POSITION OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES VIS-À-VIS OFFICE OF PROFIT IN NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI @

http://rajkhushiniti.blogspot.in/2016/05/the-imbroglio-of-post-of-parliamentary.html