A classic instance of the law of unintended consequences if ever there was one. A few MPs have also followed suit on the same grounds. Some have gone with dignity such as Karan Singh.
Others have no such qualms and appear determined to ride out the storm. If the media reports are anything to go by, there are apparently as many as 40 others treading on delicate territory. What an utter shambles.
The man on the street might look at this "office of profit" saga and wonder what the fuss is about. At first instance, chairing some desultory committee does not appear to be a sufficiently grievous miscalculation as to warrant sending down an MP from office.
The logic of the street however does not always mirror the logic of the law. Nevertheless, there is a method in the madness.
The rationale behind prohibiting an MP from holding any "office of profit" under any establishment of the Central or State government lay in preventing any ostensible or actual conflict of interest that may arise and also to preserve the independence of the member.
The Indian model derives from Britain and it is pertinent to note the subtle differences that exist between the two systems. In Britain, an MP is permitted to hold an "office of profit" under the Crown or any other office, except an office set out in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
Thus, there is an ordinary presumption that holding any other office under the Crown is permitted unless it is prohibited by the above statute. In contrast, in India there is an ordinary presumption that holding any other office under any arm of the Centre or State government is prohibited unless specifically allowed by the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act 1959.
Both systems endeavour to achieve the same ends but via slightly different means. Unfortunately, the difficulty with the Indian model is that over the years, as new establishments have been instituted, the list of exemptions in the statute has not been correspondingly increased. However, ignorance of a law is hardly a valid defence to its violation! MP's ought to have been aware of the risks. Somebody in their respective political parties should have raised some internal alarm bells.
On the issue of Sonia Gandhi's resignation, we are led to believe that her "inner voice" spoke again. Unsurprisingly, Congressmen are extolling her supreme "sacrifice". In truth, this is less about sacrifice and more about damage control. As Arun Jaitley succinctly put it, "the politics of revenge has recoiled on the Congress".
After a spell of enforced exile, there is little doubt that Sonia Gandhi will be back in Parliament.
Hopefully, she will be wiser for this experience. A question for her to mull over in the meantime is whether she and her coterie of experienced advisors could have avoided this public relations fiasco altogether.
Surely somebody in her inner cabal could have pointed out the obvious flaw to her if she missed it: Those who live in a glass house should not throw stones at others.
Ultimately though, there are larger issues here that extend beyond any particular individual. The unseemly and ludicrous spectacle of a merry band of parliamentarians caught blissfully unaware of operative constitutional provisions is an affront to the sensibilities of the electorate and corrosive to Indian democracy itself. The Indian public does not expect its MP's to be beacons of virtue. That age of innocence was over a long time ago.
However, surely the time has not come for the Indian public to discard even a minimum expectation that its elected representatives ought to have a basic knowledge of the Indian Constitution.
(Rishabh Bhandari is a lawyer at a global law firm in London. These are his personal views.)
first published:March 27, 2006, 11:52 ISTlast updated:March 27, 2006, 11:52 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-mid-article',container: 'taboola-mid-article-thumbnails',placement: 'Mid Article Thumbnails',target_type: 'mix'});
let eventFire = false;
window.addEventListener('scroll', () => {
if (window.taboolaInt && !eventFire) {
setTimeout(() => {
ga('send', 'event', 'Mid Article Thumbnails', 'PV');
ga('set', 'dimension22', "Taboola Yes");
}, 4000);
eventFire = true;
}
});
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
It is high season among MPs for an absurdist drama of staggering proportions. When the Congress petitioned the Election Commission seeking Jaya Bachchan's disqualification from the Rajya Sabha on the ground that she held an "office of profit" as chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Corporation, the party would scarcely have imagined that in the ensuing political storm, their own leader would resign from the Parliament after allegations of a similar description are raised against her.
A classic instance of the law of unintended consequences if ever there was one. A few MPs have also followed suit on the same grounds. Some have gone with dignity such as Karan Singh.
Others have no such qualms and appear determined to ride out the storm. If the media reports are anything to go by, there are apparently as many as 40 others treading on delicate territory. What an utter shambles.
The man on the street might look at this "office of profit" saga and wonder what the fuss is about. At first instance, chairing some desultory committee does not appear to be a sufficiently grievous miscalculation as to warrant sending down an MP from office.
The logic of the street however does not always mirror the logic of the law. Nevertheless, there is a method in the madness.
The rationale behind prohibiting an MP from holding any "office of profit" under any establishment of the Central or State government lay in preventing any ostensible or actual conflict of interest that may arise and also to preserve the independence of the member.
The Indian model derives from Britain and it is pertinent to note the subtle differences that exist between the two systems. In Britain, an MP is permitted to hold an "office of profit" under the Crown or any other office, except an office set out in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
Thus, there is an ordinary presumption that holding any other office under the Crown is permitted unless it is prohibited by the above statute. In contrast, in India there is an ordinary presumption that holding any other office under any arm of the Centre or State government is prohibited unless specifically allowed by the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act 1959.
Both systems endeavour to achieve the same ends but via slightly different means. Unfortunately, the difficulty with the Indian model is that over the years, as new establishments have been instituted, the list of exemptions in the statute has not been correspondingly increased. However, ignorance of a law is hardly a valid defence to its violation! MP's ought to have been aware of the risks. Somebody in their respective political parties should have raised some internal alarm bells.
On the issue of Sonia Gandhi's resignation, we are led to believe that her "inner voice" spoke again. Unsurprisingly, Congressmen are extolling her supreme "sacrifice". In truth, this is less about sacrifice and more about damage control. As Arun Jaitley succinctly put it, "the politics of revenge has recoiled on the Congress".
After a spell of enforced exile, there is little doubt that Sonia Gandhi will be back in Parliament.
Hopefully, she will be wiser for this experience. A question for her to mull over in the meantime is whether she and her coterie of experienced advisors could have avoided this public relations fiasco altogether.
Surely somebody in her inner cabal could have pointed out the obvious flaw to her if she missed it: Those who live in a glass house should not throw stones at others.
Ultimately though, there are larger issues here that extend beyond any particular individual. The unseemly and ludicrous spectacle of a merry band of parliamentarians caught blissfully unaware of operative constitutional provisions is an affront to the sensibilities of the electorate and corrosive to Indian democracy itself. The Indian public does not expect its MP's to be beacons of virtue. That age of innocence was over a long time ago.
However, surely the time has not come for the Indian public to discard even a minimum expectation that its elected representatives ought to have a basic knowledge of the Indian Constitution.
(Rishabh Bhandari is a lawyer at a global law firm in London. These are his personal views.)
Comments
0 comment