Twenty AAP MLAs Disqualified For Holding Office Of Profit

Must Read

The Right to Information and its Working of 15 years

On 12th October 2020, RTI finished fifteen years since its commencement. The question remains whether the legislation stands up to...

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

Follow us

The Disqualification

On 21st January 2018, the President of India confirmed the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs on the recommendation of the Election Commission. This was the result of a petition filed against them by a young lawyer in 2015, alleging that they were holding “office of profit” with the Government as all of them were Parliament Secretaries.

Post Of ‘Parliamentary Secretary’ Constitutes Office Of Profit?

The question of whether the post of a ‘Parliamentary Secretary’ constitutes an ‘office of profit’ or not is to be decided judiciously. As a Parliamentary Secretary assists a Minister, the office usually comes with perks as well as a measure of political influence. Hence, it would ideally constitute an “office of profit”. But in a notification confirming their appointment, it was stated by the Government of India that they would not be given any kind of perks or remuneration by the Government. Nevertheless, on 19th January 2018, the Election Commission (EC) had written to the President asking him to disqualify the 20 AAP MLAs on the grounds that they held offices of profit while occupying the post of Parliamentary Secretaries between March 13, 2015 and September 8, 2016.

The Decision

The President has held in favor of the EC and passed a 120-page order disqualifying 20 MLAs. The MLAs who have been axed are Alka Lamba, Adarsh Shastri, Sanjeev Jha, Rajesh Gupta, Kailash Gehlot, Vijendra Garg, Praveen Kumar, Sharad Kumar, Madan Lal Khufiya, Shiv Charan Goyal, Sarita Singh, Naresh Yadav, Rajesh Rishi, Anil Kumar, Som Dutt, Avtar Singh, Sukhvir Singh Dala, Manoj Kumar and Nitin Tyagi.

The appointment of the respondent MLAs as Parliamentary Secretaries by the GNCTD bypasses and frustrates the objective sought to be achieved by Section 15(1)(a) of The Government Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi Act, 1991 and is also against the principle of legislative oversight of the Government which is the basic tenet of Parliamentary form of Democracy,” the EC said in its exhaustive recommendation to the President, which was accepted by the latter.

Preceding Circumstances And Resulting Consequences

All the members of the AAP were enraged by the hasty decision taken by the President of India. They were trying to hold a meeting with the President in regard to this matter but their efforts could not materialize due to the President’s busy schedule. Earlier attempts were made by the Delhi Chief Minister to exclude the office of Parliament Secretary from the ambit of “Office of Profit” but they were not successful. In response, it was alleged by the MLAs that the ruling Central Government is misusing the Constitutional machinery in order to win the upcoming elections in Delhi. All the 20 AAP MLAs had moved the Delhi High Court challenging the EC’s recommendation but Justice Rekha Palli had refused to pass any interim order.

The Congress party members alleged that AAP was being helped by BJP and the Election Commission as the decision was delayed by 3 weeks. If the MLAs would have been disqualified before December 22, they would have been ineligible for voting in the Rajya Sabha elections. However, this development will not affect the AAP’s position in Delhi Assembly as it has already 66 out of 70 seats in the same. But the BJP and the Congress parties have demanded resignation from Arvind Kejriwal on moral grounds.

The Constitutional experts have stated that the Courts have the power to set aside the recommendations of the Election Commission. In case they are not set aside, fresh elections are to be held in the next six months. The recommendation can be subjected to legal scrutiny.

The decision of the High Court is greatly awaited as it is going to make a breakthrough in the jurisprudence of the concept of “Office of Profit”. Though the Government has given criteria to define the same, this is a unique situation where the President has allegedly used his power in haste and delivered an incorrect decision.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by the Exporters Association before the...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -