Two years before the nation was jolted by Jaya Bachhan –
Sonia Gandhi starring Office of Profit drama, I had reported
this hush-hush move by Punjab’s fast-profiting Parliamentary
Secretaries as they prepared to rush in a bill terming their
offices as Office of No Profit. I got hold of the Cabinet’s
agenda a day before the Council of Ministers was to meet,
and The Indian Express put this story on the front page. No,
it didn’t help in stopping the move. What do you think
Office of No Profit means? It also means Office of No Shame.
Govt rushes to prevent disqualification of three Chief Parl Secs
S P Singh
BADLY caught on the wrong side of the law in appointing Chief Parliamentary Secretaries, and facing a serious legal challenge in this regard, Punjab Government is moving fast to cover its flanks and Council of Ministers will be asked tomorrow to clear issuance of an Ordinance declaring Chief Parliamentary Secretary's office as being an office of no profit.
As per the Constitution's Article 191, an MLA can be disqualified if he takes up an office of profit under the Government of India or the state government unless until that office is declared by the legislature of the state by law as an office of no profit thus preventing disqualification.
It is precisely for this reason that the existing provisions of the Punjab State Legislature (Prevention of Disqualifications) Act 1952 prevent a Parliamentary Secretary from disqualification by defining his office as an office of no profit.
The protection was however not available to the Chief Parliamentary Secretaries.
Sources said the Council of Ministers will be told tomorrow morning that “as per the advice given by Advocate General Punjab and the State Law Department, the state government intends to issue an ordinance to save from disqualification the members of Punjab Legislative Assembly who hold the office of Chief Parliamentary Secretary.”
|
Even as Amarinder regime clears way for issuance of a notification to save from disqualification, sources said it may still not be off the hook. “It is true that Parliamentary Secretary's office was declared as office of no profit and CPS office will also be counted as office of no profit once the ordinance is issued, the state government still has to contend with the fact that Assembly rules define Parliamentary Secretary as within the ambit of meaning of the term Minister,” said a senior official. Also, the CM himself could become liable for violation of oath of secrecy by allowing access to official files to these CPS and PS, he said.
|
Further, this is proposed to be done retrospectively from July 12 this year, the date on which the three CPS and nine Parliamentary Secretaries were appointed.
Sources said Chief Minister Amarinder Singh was forced to take the step after the three CPS, including close CM associate Rana Gurmit Singh Sodhi, sensed a clear and present threat to their membership of the Legislative Assembly (MLA'ship) following a Civil Writ Petition 12935 of 2004, filed by Lawyers for Social Action and others against Government of India, in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court has already issued a notice of motion to 15 respondents, including the state of Punjab.
The petitioner had submitted that appointment of three CPS and nine PS was a direct violation of the 91st Amendment of the Constitution as per which the
Centre and state governments are expected to limit the size of Council of Ministers to a maximum of 15 per cent of the total strength of the legislature. It said since a Minister is defined in the rules as Cabinet Minister, Minister of State, Deputy Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, the nine Parliamentary Secretaries must be counted as within the 15 per cent limit set upon the CoM by the Constitutional Amendment effective June 9 this year, thus inferring that the state government was in breach of the law of the land.
October 26, 2004