03-28-2006, 07:11 AM
<!--emo&:devil--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devilsmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='devilsmiley.gif' /><!--endemo--> Friday, March 24, 2006
<b>Office of Profit: Whose profit and whose loss?
Are we heading towards a Constitutional Crisis?</b>
A big political âGalataâ is going on in Delhi. There is so much of activity in the ruling party and the opposition. It is for the reason that has nothing to do with the usual ârulingâ of the country and the administration. It is on the issue of disqualifying Mrs. Jaya Bachan from the position of Rajya Sabha MP [1]. The President signed the notification of the disqualification of Ms. Bachan on the advice of the EC, which opined that she can be disqualified under sub-clause (a) of Clause 1 of Article 102, retrospectively from July 14, 2004.
Is this a political vendetta? The following observations could provide some insights. Mr. Amithabh Bachan was the close friend of late Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. SP and Congress are political opponents in UP. SP was the one which spoilt the chances of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to become PM in 1998. Secular SPâs opposition influenced soniaâs position of relinquishing PMâs seat. Amitabh is closer to Amar Singh, the right hand man of Mulayam. He is a big crowd puller. His relationship with Sonia has soured. Targeting Jaya Bachan could hurt Mulayam. If you can hurt somehow, go ahead and hurt by some means! Everything is fair in political one-upmanship.
What this âoffice of Profitâ is? Article 102 says: 1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament - (a) if he holds any âoffice of profitâ under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder [2]. Firstly, it is actually connected with Article 101 which permits a member of the parliament to decide to take one of the offices when (s)he is (s)elected for two positions that are under the Govt. of Indiaâs purview including that of state Govts. Secondly, a valid interpretation of this article is to avoid the conflict of interest and duties when a person occupies two positions [3]. The last comment is about this âprofitâ that constitution talks about. After all we know that our politicians are there to serve us. Then what is the meaning of âoffice of profitâ?!
Now, ToI reports the ânewsâ about the promulgation of an ordinance [5] to some how stop President Kalamâs referral to the EC regarding the membership of around 44 MPs [4], including Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Somnath Chatterjee the speaker. The Budget Session has also been shortened to avoid the discussion in the parliament. Donât you think that Mrs. Indira Gandhi did work similarly when she was disqualified â by declaring emergency? Are we heading towards another emergency (if the ordinance is ruled to be unconstitutional by SC)? If Sonia has resigned [6], is it not the only way for her to save her face and her partyâs? If Sonia is morally the tallest politician [6], why did Manmohan tried to bring in the ordinance? Why Mr. Manmohan Singh panicked? Who is ruling the country? What is the basis for ruling the country â politics or the constitution and the moral authority? Sonia is no where near Mahatma [6], Mahatmaâs moral authority is unmatched! Sonia is trying to win âvotesâ even when caught red handed!
While the BJP is claiming victory over Soniaâs resignation, Congress is probably preparing for the promulgation of the ordinance or constitutional amendment to allow a person to hold as many posts as possible!
The ordinance could help if it restricts one person to one post. This should include the contest itself. A person contests two parliamentary positions and after winning one there will be elections again. Why should we pay for the âjob securityâ of our beloved politicians? The definition of âOffice of Profitâ should be broadly interpreted and guidelines to be provided to manage such an office. We should ensure that the guidelines are enforced through moral binding and not by political calculations.
<b>Office of Profit: Whose profit and whose loss?
Are we heading towards a Constitutional Crisis?</b>
A big political âGalataâ is going on in Delhi. There is so much of activity in the ruling party and the opposition. It is for the reason that has nothing to do with the usual ârulingâ of the country and the administration. It is on the issue of disqualifying Mrs. Jaya Bachan from the position of Rajya Sabha MP [1]. The President signed the notification of the disqualification of Ms. Bachan on the advice of the EC, which opined that she can be disqualified under sub-clause (a) of Clause 1 of Article 102, retrospectively from July 14, 2004.
Is this a political vendetta? The following observations could provide some insights. Mr. Amithabh Bachan was the close friend of late Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. SP and Congress are political opponents in UP. SP was the one which spoilt the chances of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to become PM in 1998. Secular SPâs opposition influenced soniaâs position of relinquishing PMâs seat. Amitabh is closer to Amar Singh, the right hand man of Mulayam. He is a big crowd puller. His relationship with Sonia has soured. Targeting Jaya Bachan could hurt Mulayam. If you can hurt somehow, go ahead and hurt by some means! Everything is fair in political one-upmanship.
What this âoffice of Profitâ is? Article 102 says: 1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament - (a) if he holds any âoffice of profitâ under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder [2]. Firstly, it is actually connected with Article 101 which permits a member of the parliament to decide to take one of the offices when (s)he is (s)elected for two positions that are under the Govt. of Indiaâs purview including that of state Govts. Secondly, a valid interpretation of this article is to avoid the conflict of interest and duties when a person occupies two positions [3]. The last comment is about this âprofitâ that constitution talks about. After all we know that our politicians are there to serve us. Then what is the meaning of âoffice of profitâ?!
Now, ToI reports the ânewsâ about the promulgation of an ordinance [5] to some how stop President Kalamâs referral to the EC regarding the membership of around 44 MPs [4], including Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Somnath Chatterjee the speaker. The Budget Session has also been shortened to avoid the discussion in the parliament. Donât you think that Mrs. Indira Gandhi did work similarly when she was disqualified â by declaring emergency? Are we heading towards another emergency (if the ordinance is ruled to be unconstitutional by SC)? If Sonia has resigned [6], is it not the only way for her to save her face and her partyâs? If Sonia is morally the tallest politician [6], why did Manmohan tried to bring in the ordinance? Why Mr. Manmohan Singh panicked? Who is ruling the country? What is the basis for ruling the country â politics or the constitution and the moral authority? Sonia is no where near Mahatma [6], Mahatmaâs moral authority is unmatched! Sonia is trying to win âvotesâ even when caught red handed!
While the BJP is claiming victory over Soniaâs resignation, Congress is probably preparing for the promulgation of the ordinance or constitutional amendment to allow a person to hold as many posts as possible!
The ordinance could help if it restricts one person to one post. This should include the contest itself. A person contests two parliamentary positions and after winning one there will be elections again. Why should we pay for the âjob securityâ of our beloved politicians? The definition of âOffice of Profitâ should be broadly interpreted and guidelines to be provided to manage such an office. We should ensure that the guidelines are enforced through moral binding and not by political calculations.