Offices of profit: One rule must apply to all

Twenty-one AAP MLAs in Delhi could lose their Assembly seats if the Election Commission decides against them. Last year they were appointed parliament secretary by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. This position is deemed an “office of profit” as it is thought to bring “pecuniary” gains. These expressions need greater clarity though, and the EC might do well to reflect on this aspect of the matter as the CM has maintained that the parliamentary secretaries have received no pay or perks from the government, not even individual cars.

Although there have been parliamentary secretaries in the past at the Centre, in more recent times a constitutional provision has brought that designation in the category of office of profit, which a legislator is prohibited from holding as an MP or MLA is not supposed to earn material gains from the executive.

Traditionally, however, a parliamentary secretary has been seen as a sub-junior minister, or more accurately as a position which permits a young politician to be groomed as a future minister. Possibly in Indian conditions, given the “aya Ram, gaya Ram” political culture that developed here, the fear arose that leaders of government might be tempted to distribute positions as a political necessity in order to retain their flock, and a constitutional provision was created discouraging the creation of parliamentary secretaries.

To ring-fence the MLAs in question from any penal action, the Kejriwal government had taken the precaution of passing a bill in the state legislature that would exclude the position of parliamentary secretary from being considered an office of profit, but President Mukherjee did not okay it.

It is this which has set off speculation about the MLAs’ imminent disqualification and a mid-term mini-election in Delhi as the affected MLAs constitute nearly a third of AAP’s legislature strength of 67 in a House of 70. BJP and Congress can’t believe their luck as it gives them a try at improving their score in Delhi. Whichever way it might turn, all concerned need to ponder that many states still have parliamentary secretaries, and this includes BJP-run states. It is imperative that all states follow the same practice. In the last decade, the Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta and Bombay (Goa Bench) high courts have ruled against parliamentary secretaries. One of these rulings was challenged in the Supreme Court in 2005. The SC has not spoken yet. Its interpretation would be the law on the subject. Until then, the Election Commission should hold off. The Supreme Court must not display any further lassitude.