AAP govt looks to poll panel for relief in office-of-profit row

NEW DELHI: After the rejection of the Delhi MLAs (removal and disqualification amendment) Bill that could have protected the Delhi government’s parliamentary secretaries

NEW DELHI: After the rejection of the Delhi MLAs (removal and disqualification amendment) Bill that could have protected the Delhi government’s parliamentary secretaries from disqualification, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is looking at the Election Commission for a breather.

HT Image

The complainant, lawyer Prashant Patel, first petitioned the President in June 2015 to disqualify the 21 MLAs for holding an office of profit as parliamentary secretaries.

This complaint was forwarded to the Election Commission, which sent a show-cause notice to the MLAs.

Patel’s complaint said the appointment of the MLAs was unconstitutional and illegal.

In the office order dated March 13, 2015, the Delhi government stated that the 21 parliamentary secretaries appointed by it would not be eligible for remuneration or perks of any kind from the government. “However, they may use government transport for official purposes only and office space in the ministers’ office would be provided to them to facilitate their work,” the order stated.

According to AAP, this does not constitute office of profit. In their reply to the EC, the MLAs stated that since they do not get benefits from their posts, their case does not fall under the category of office of profit.

It is this question that the EC has to settle.

In his complaint, Patel said he filed the petition to check political corruption. In a rejoinder to the EC, Patel said the MLAs cannot discharge their duties impartially.

“… These MLAs cannot on any legislative proposal or measure afford to take a stand contrary to that of their government,” the rejoinder stated.

The AAP, on the other hand, questioned the appointment of parliamentary secretaries in other states as well as in Delhi in the past and asked how that was acceptable but their appointments illegal.

Patel’s rejoinder also addressed this point and said, “In the previous governments also, the appointment of parliamentary secretaries was an act of gross illegality, which somehow went unchallenged. The respondents (MLAs) cannot claim immunity citing those illegal acts which took place in previous dispensations.”

Patel’s petition and the rejoinder also ask why parliamentary secretaries had been appointed when none in the past had been permitted to speak, act or substitute in the assembly as a minister, as is the case in other states.