READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.
MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC
Legal issues become needless controversies when politics casts a dark shadow on them. The issue of the President withholding assent (the expression of approval or agreement) to a Delhi government Bill seeking to protect its 21 parliamentary secretaries from incurring disqualification on the grounds of holding an office of profit, is a flagrant ((of an action considered wrong or immoral) conspicuously or obviously offensive) example.
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal accuses (charge (someone) with an offence or crime) the Narendra Modi government of having a political motive in advising the President against granting assent. He cites (To issue a notice of violation to) the prevailing practice of appointing parliamentary secretaries in several other States, notably in Gujarat and Punjab, where the BJP and its allies are in power. Further, laws in these States expressly protect them from disqualification — a protection that he says Delhi is being denied (state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of) by the Centre.
The matter is essentially a mix of two legal questions: whether the post of parliamentary secretary, paid or unpaid, is an office of profit; and whether MLAs are given the positions only to get around the constitutional limit on the number of ministers a State can have. These questions can be settled through the Election Commission and the courts of law, and attempts to politicise them are unnecessary.
The parliamentary secretaries are under notice from the EC to show cause why they should not be disqualified for holding an ‘office of profit’. The Centre appears reluctant (unwilling and hesitant; disinclined) to clear the Bill as it may amount to granting retrospective (looking back on or dealing with past events or situations) protection and pre-empting the EC’s opinion.
Mr. Kejriwal contends (assert something as a position in an argument) that his parliamentary secretaries do not draw any salaries or perquisites. He ought to canvass this point before the Election Commission. The EC will have to go by the set of tests evolved (develop gradually) by the Supreme Court on whether a particular post is an ‘office of profit’: whether the government makes the appointment, remunerates the appointee, has the right to remove the appointee and controls the appointee’s functions.
Further, some High Courts have ruled that parliamentary secretaries are essentially ministers and their appointment would be struck down if it resulted in the ministry’s strength breaching (make a gap in and break through (a wall, barrier, or defence)) the constitutional limit. Under Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution, introduced in 2003, the Council of Ministers should not comprise more than 15 per cent of the strength of a Legislative Assembly.
In the case of the 70-member Delhi Assembly, the limit is 10 per cent, or seven ministers. Such questions arise because the term ‘office of profit’ and the post of parliamentary secretary do not yet have a clear legal definition. A legislative solution applicable across the country is needed. That should ensure that there are no double standards in applying the law on office of profit.
#################
