In a major blow to Delhi’s CM Arvind Kejriwal, the Election Commission today recommended to the President the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs for holding office of profit, thereby paving the way for their removal from the Delhi Assembly.
But what happened exactly? What’s the technicality that Arvind Kejriwal missed that will lead to the removal of 20 AAP MLAs. Basically, what happened is this:
AAP stormed to power in Delhi with a massive majority in February 2015. Now, according to the Constitution of India, the total number of ministers in the Council of Ministers must not exceed 15% of the total number of members of the House of the People. That meant that Kejriwal could not have 20 or 30 ministers in the 70-member Delhi assembly. For AAP that had 67 elected MLAs, this was a big problem. Unless the loyalty of these MLAs could be ensured, Kejriwal’s government could be at the mercy of the nefarious designs of his political opponents. This was also a time when rebellion sponsored by YoYa and the Bhushans was raging. Hence, Kejriwal, in a political masterstroke, appointed 21 AAP MLAs as Parliamentary Secretaries on 13th March 2015. Thereafter, Delhi government introduced a law that retrospectively exempted the office of Parliamentary Secretary from the office of profit classification. The amendment was sent for President’s approval.
The then President, Pranab Mukherjee squarely rejected the amendment made by AAP to the Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1997.
This was to be the 1 Big Mistake of Kejriwal, that led to the ouster of 20 AAP MLAs
20 AAP MLAs held Office of Profit:
Office of Profit is a term used in article 102(1)(A) of the Indian constitution, which bars a member from holding an office that could result in financial gains or benefits. Subsequent amendments in law resulted in some offices being exempted from the ‘Office of Profit’ term, while others continued to be in the proscribed list. Representatives are also forbidden from holding an Office of Profit under the Representation of People Act and article 191(E) of the Constitution as well. Now, while AAP claims that the term Parliamentary Secretary is merely a terminology and that the MLAs appointed as Parliamentary Secretaries are not drawing any remunerations, the fact is that the designation Parliamentary Secretary comes attached with a number of perks and benefits, for example office, office staff, vehicles for commuting etc., which means that the matter is murkier than it seems. No doubt then, that the Election Commission, acting as a Quasi-Judicial body sought the MLA’s response back June itself, before taking any action on the matter.
20 AAP MLAs: EC had the final say
It was clear that if the 20 AAP MLAs were unable to satisfy the election commission, it could very well result in their dismissal, which would undoubtedly result in legal wrangling. President’s refusal to grant assent to the bill was being seen as nothing less than a slap on Kejriwal’s face already. No wonder that Kejriwal soon begun issuing his oft repeated calumniation against PM Narendra Modi as he, more than anyone else, realized that this will be a big blow to his ‘honest politics’ brand. Constitutional experts say that a legislator who holds an office or post under the government – even if no remuneration is received but enjoys perks would be deemed to be holding an office of profit.
It would have been the better, but the infinitely more difficult thing for Kejriwal to do – that is to accept that the whole MLAs as Parliamentary Secretary thing looks murky and announce that he is prepared to go by the recommendations of the Election Commission. That could have been one way of reiterating AAP’s commitment to honest politics. It would have strengthened Kejriwal’s anti-corruption crusader image as well.
Unfortunately though, Kejriwal chose to stick to his Modi-bashing strategy which firstly endeared him further to his “AAPtard” followers and secondly enabled the core issue to get lost in the din of allegations and counter allegations.
