http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Kalam_erred_on_Office_of_Profit_bill/articleshow/2970756.cmsAn office of profit is a term used in a number of national constitutions to refer to executive appointments. A number of countries forbid members of the legislature from accepting an office of profit under the executive as a means to secure the independence of the legislature and preserve the separation of powers. The term is used in Article 102 (1)(A) of the Indian Constitution which bars a member of the Indian Parliament from holding an office that would give its occupant the opportunity to gain a financial advantage or benefit.
The controversy started with the disqualification of Ms Jaya Bachchan as Rajya Sabha MP on the ground that she was holding an office of profit as chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council. This turned the spotlight on many other MPs as well and in 2006, Indian National Congress President and MP, Sonia Gandhi, had to to resign from several posts under pressure from opposition who asserted that the posts were 'offices of profit' and thus unlawful.
The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006, also referred to as the Office of Profit Bill was passed exempting 56 posts from the purview of disqualification. The politicians came up with this instrument to save the fifty odd MPs from the possible disqualification from their respective offices of profit. The President, Mr A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, returned the Office of Profit Bill asking Parliament to reconsider it taking into account the legal propriety of its application with retrospective effect.
As expected, corrupt politicians ignored Kalam’s advice to observe legal propriety and The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006, was introduced on May 17 and passed on the same day by voice vote without any detailed discussion. The Bill was sent to the President on May 25 for assent and it is common knowledge that besides obtaining expert views, APJ Abdul Kalam personally studied the Bill before sending it back for reconsideration by the Parliament. Exercising his power under Article 111 of the Constitution, the President wanted the Bill's focus to be on evolving a comprehensive criterion, which would be just, fair and reasonable, and applied across all States and Union Territories in a clear and transparent manner.
To achieve the noble objective of ensuring that the lawmakers of the country at the Center and States, who are sworn to uphold the law and Constitution, discharge sacred trust which the people reposed in them, in a fair and impartial manner, the Constitution mandated that the Members of Parliament (MPs) and the State Legislatures should not, during their tenure, hold any 'office of profit' under the Government, so that they would not be 'obliged' to the Executive. Unfortunately, the Constitution also empowered the Parliament and the State Legislatives to identify those `offices of profit' which would be exempted from disqualification. This power has been unabashedly used by the politicians to create a host of offices of profit for themselves which were saved from constitutional disqualification and made a mockery of the Indian Constitution.
APJ Abdul Kalam’s then Secretary P M Nair, now accusing him of sitting over the issue for 17 days and asserting that Kalam was duty bound to give assent to the bill when it came to him a second time, is a blatant and disgraceful attempt by an opportunist to please the Congress and improve his future prospects. His statement that he had advised the then President verbally and in writing to clear the bill amounts to an ill concealed effort to clear himself from the responsibility for the delay in signing of the Bill by APJ Abdul Kalam. That the President said he was going by his conscience is obviously not enough for the sycophant babu to refrain from criticising the best President India has had after independence. It is the collective responsibility of corrupt politicians and sycophant bureaucrats, like Mr PM Nair, that India is stuck with undeserving people occupying the highest post in the country.
The controversy started with the disqualification of Ms Jaya Bachchan as Rajya Sabha MP on the ground that she was holding an office of profit as chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council. This turned the spotlight on many other MPs as well and in 2006, Indian National Congress President and MP, Sonia Gandhi, had to to resign from several posts under pressure from opposition who asserted that the posts were 'offices of profit' and thus unlawful.
The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006, also referred to as the Office of Profit Bill was passed exempting 56 posts from the purview of disqualification. The politicians came up with this instrument to save the fifty odd MPs from the possible disqualification from their respective offices of profit. The President, Mr A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, returned the Office of Profit Bill asking Parliament to reconsider it taking into account the legal propriety of its application with retrospective effect.
As expected, corrupt politicians ignored Kalam’s advice to observe legal propriety and The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006, was introduced on May 17 and passed on the same day by voice vote without any detailed discussion. The Bill was sent to the President on May 25 for assent and it is common knowledge that besides obtaining expert views, APJ Abdul Kalam personally studied the Bill before sending it back for reconsideration by the Parliament. Exercising his power under Article 111 of the Constitution, the President wanted the Bill's focus to be on evolving a comprehensive criterion, which would be just, fair and reasonable, and applied across all States and Union Territories in a clear and transparent manner.
To achieve the noble objective of ensuring that the lawmakers of the country at the Center and States, who are sworn to uphold the law and Constitution, discharge sacred trust which the people reposed in them, in a fair and impartial manner, the Constitution mandated that the Members of Parliament (MPs) and the State Legislatures should not, during their tenure, hold any 'office of profit' under the Government, so that they would not be 'obliged' to the Executive. Unfortunately, the Constitution also empowered the Parliament and the State Legislatives to identify those `offices of profit' which would be exempted from disqualification. This power has been unabashedly used by the politicians to create a host of offices of profit for themselves which were saved from constitutional disqualification and made a mockery of the Indian Constitution.
APJ Abdul Kalam’s then Secretary P M Nair, now accusing him of sitting over the issue for 17 days and asserting that Kalam was duty bound to give assent to the bill when it came to him a second time, is a blatant and disgraceful attempt by an opportunist to please the Congress and improve his future prospects. His statement that he had advised the then President verbally and in writing to clear the bill amounts to an ill concealed effort to clear himself from the responsibility for the delay in signing of the Bill by APJ Abdul Kalam. That the President said he was going by his conscience is obviously not enough for the sycophant babu to refrain from criticising the best President India has had after independence. It is the collective responsibility of corrupt politicians and sycophant bureaucrats, like Mr PM Nair, that India is stuck with undeserving people occupying the highest post in the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment