05-31-2006, 02:01 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Rethink OoP Bill, Prez tells Govt </b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
In a major loss of face for the UPA Government, President APJ Abdul Kalam on Tuesday returned to the consideration of Parliament a Bill seeking to exempt certain posts from the purview of 'office-of-profit' with retrospective effect.Â
The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill 2006, Bill passed in the just-concluded session of Parliament, had exempted from the definition of office of profit 56 posts, including that of National Advisory Council Chairperson, a post earlier held by Congress president Sonia Gandhi. The President had received the Bill on May 25.
Sources said, the President decided to invoke his power under Article 111 of the Constitution to return a Government Bill after holding wide-ranging consultations with legal and constitutional experts. This was the first occasion when President Kalam has returned a Bill for reconsideration of Parliament.
<b>Sources said that the President had sent the Bill to Speaker and chairman of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, advising them to place the Bill for reconsideration in Parliament on two specific counts</b>.
The President sought "comprehensive and generic" criteria and also that the criteria should be "fair and reasonable" and applicable in a "clear and transparent" manner across all the States and Union Territories.
Another point on which the President is said to have had reservations was about the propriety of applying the law with retrospective effect. The implication of including the names of offices for which petitions were already pending under process by the competent authority should also be addressed by Parliament while reconsidering the Bill, official sources said.
The BJP, which had opposed the passage of the Bill in Parliament, has described the <b>President's decision as a "rap on the knuckles of the UPA Government". </b>The party also urged the Election Commission to declare as vacant the seats of those who were sought to be protected by the legislation.
<b>"The return of the Bill is a rap on the knuckles of the UPA Government which had converted unconstitutionality into a mode of governance. The BJP and NDA had opposed this law as violation of the Constitution,"</b> party spokesman Arun Jaitley said.
Alleging that the Bill was discriminatory, Jaitley said, "The law was immoral because Parliament was legislating not in public interest but in self-interest. There was no rationale why the law should have been made retrospective by 47 years from 1959."
<b>The former Union Law Minister said the President had "rightly sent it back".</b>
"The Election Commission must now swing into action and declare the seats of those who were sought to be protected by the Bill as vacant," he said.
Meanwhile, the Congress said that the President has every right to raise queries about any Bill sent to him by Parliament.
"This is a constitutional process. The President has the right to raise queries. Both the Houses of Parliament have the right to pass such Bills and the Government has the right to return the legislation again to the President. This is a constitutional process," party spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said.
AICC secretary Tom Vadakkan said "it is a matter between President and the Government".
<b>The controversial Bill exempted 56 posts including that of chairperson of National Advisory Council, a post held by Congress president Sonia Gandhi who had resigned from Lok Sabha and got re-elected from Rae Bareli and Sriniketan-Santiniketan Development Authority headed by Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee</b>.
Other offices exempted include UP Development Council headed by Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh and the now-defunct All India Council of Sports earlier headed by BJP leader VK Malhotra with retrospective effect.
<b>The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Board, the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts and the Indian Council for Cultural Relations were among 56 organisations exempted under the Bill. Union Minister T Subbirami Reddy, Kapila Vatsyayan and senior Congress leader Karan Singh had headed the three bodies respectively.
The organisations included 14 from West Bengal alone, many of which are headed by MPs of CPI(M) which is a key outside supporter of the Congress-led UPA Government at the Centre. Trinamool Congress had petitioned the President seeking the disqualification of ten CPI(M) MPs, including the Lok Sabha Speaker</b>.
In essence, the Bill provides that the members who are currently holding offices of profit under the Central Government or any (individuals holding known and listed "offices") shall not be disqualified from being members of Parliament since Parliament has retrospectively declared by law that the office of profit they so hold would not disqualify the holder.
<b>Legal experts had also criticised the Bill claiming that it violated the spirit of Article 102 (1) of the Indian Constitution </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
In a major loss of face for the UPA Government, President APJ Abdul Kalam on Tuesday returned to the consideration of Parliament a Bill seeking to exempt certain posts from the purview of 'office-of-profit' with retrospective effect.Â
The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill 2006, Bill passed in the just-concluded session of Parliament, had exempted from the definition of office of profit 56 posts, including that of National Advisory Council Chairperson, a post earlier held by Congress president Sonia Gandhi. The President had received the Bill on May 25.
Sources said, the President decided to invoke his power under Article 111 of the Constitution to return a Government Bill after holding wide-ranging consultations with legal and constitutional experts. This was the first occasion when President Kalam has returned a Bill for reconsideration of Parliament.
<b>Sources said that the President had sent the Bill to Speaker and chairman of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, advising them to place the Bill for reconsideration in Parliament on two specific counts</b>.
The President sought "comprehensive and generic" criteria and also that the criteria should be "fair and reasonable" and applicable in a "clear and transparent" manner across all the States and Union Territories.
Another point on which the President is said to have had reservations was about the propriety of applying the law with retrospective effect. The implication of including the names of offices for which petitions were already pending under process by the competent authority should also be addressed by Parliament while reconsidering the Bill, official sources said.
The BJP, which had opposed the passage of the Bill in Parliament, has described the <b>President's decision as a "rap on the knuckles of the UPA Government". </b>The party also urged the Election Commission to declare as vacant the seats of those who were sought to be protected by the legislation.
<b>"The return of the Bill is a rap on the knuckles of the UPA Government which had converted unconstitutionality into a mode of governance. The BJP and NDA had opposed this law as violation of the Constitution,"</b> party spokesman Arun Jaitley said.
Alleging that the Bill was discriminatory, Jaitley said, "The law was immoral because Parliament was legislating not in public interest but in self-interest. There was no rationale why the law should have been made retrospective by 47 years from 1959."
<b>The former Union Law Minister said the President had "rightly sent it back".</b>
"The Election Commission must now swing into action and declare the seats of those who were sought to be protected by the Bill as vacant," he said.
Meanwhile, the Congress said that the President has every right to raise queries about any Bill sent to him by Parliament.
"This is a constitutional process. The President has the right to raise queries. Both the Houses of Parliament have the right to pass such Bills and the Government has the right to return the legislation again to the President. This is a constitutional process," party spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said.
AICC secretary Tom Vadakkan said "it is a matter between President and the Government".
<b>The controversial Bill exempted 56 posts including that of chairperson of National Advisory Council, a post held by Congress president Sonia Gandhi who had resigned from Lok Sabha and got re-elected from Rae Bareli and Sriniketan-Santiniketan Development Authority headed by Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee</b>.
Other offices exempted include UP Development Council headed by Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh and the now-defunct All India Council of Sports earlier headed by BJP leader VK Malhotra with retrospective effect.
<b>The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Board, the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts and the Indian Council for Cultural Relations were among 56 organisations exempted under the Bill. Union Minister T Subbirami Reddy, Kapila Vatsyayan and senior Congress leader Karan Singh had headed the three bodies respectively.
The organisations included 14 from West Bengal alone, many of which are headed by MPs of CPI(M) which is a key outside supporter of the Congress-led UPA Government at the Centre. Trinamool Congress had petitioned the President seeking the disqualification of ten CPI(M) MPs, including the Lok Sabha Speaker</b>.
In essence, the Bill provides that the members who are currently holding offices of profit under the Central Government or any (individuals holding known and listed "offices") shall not be disqualified from being members of Parliament since Parliament has retrospectively declared by law that the office of profit they so hold would not disqualify the holder.
<b>Legal experts had also criticised the Bill claiming that it violated the spirit of Article 102 (1) of the Indian Constitution </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->