THE UP Legislature (Prevention of disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006, passed by the State Assembly today, is likely to be caught in legal wrangles. While the State Government has sought to implement fresh legislation with retrospective effect of 2003, there are differing opinions among legislators over the issue.
Former Speaker Keshari Nath Tripathi said the government move was “unethical and improper”.
The petitioner and senior Congress leader Madan Mohan Shukla referring to the passage of the Bill told the ‘Hindustan Times’ on Thursday that he would challenge the validity of the Bill if the Mulayam Singh Yadav Government tried to protect the Rajya Sabha membership of Jaya Bachchan on the basis of this legislation. Shukla said the Election Commission had already decided Bachchan’s case and the issue was pending before the President APJ Abdul Kalam for approval of her disqualification.
Shukla said since the EC’s hearing in the case had been completed the provisions of the new legislation could not come in way of the presidential decision. Since Bachchan had announced to move the Supreme Court against EC verdict, Shukla said he had already file caveat in the apex court. He said the case was also pending in High Court in which issues had been framed.
The leader of the Teachers’ Group in Vidhan Parishad Om Prakash Sharma said there had been instances in the past when Bills had been passed with retrospective effect but “it was a different case in which the matter was seized with a competent authority”. Sharma said people had been compensated with legislative measures if there were adverse court verdict. He said it was debatable whether the provisions of the fresh legislation would be applicable in the case of Jaya Bachchan. Sharma said, “only the judiciary can decide”.
{{/usCountry}}The leader of the Teachers’ Group in Vidhan Parishad Om Prakash Sharma said there had been instances in the past when Bills had been passed with retrospective effect but “it was a different case in which the matter was seized with a competent authority”. Sharma said people had been compensated with legislative measures if there were adverse court verdict. He said it was debatable whether the provisions of the fresh legislation would be applicable in the case of Jaya Bachchan. Sharma said, “only the judiciary can decide”.
{{/usCountry}}Tripathi echoed Sharma’s thoughts and said once a MP or MLA assumed office of profit he automatically stands disqualified. Moving the Governor or EC in the case was just a “procedural matter”. Tripathi said when the matter was pending before the President, the State Government could not provide any reprieve to Bachchan under the cover of amendment in an Act.