Profiting from office?

BY darius| IN Opinion | 13/03/2006

 You don`t say!

Darius Nakoonwala

It had to happen sooner or later. The role of the Rajya Sabha had to come into dramatic focus.  

This is what happened last week over the Jaya Bachchan issue in which the Election Commission has said that, in its view, Ms Bachchan has no right to be a Member of the Upper House because she holds what is quaintly called an `office of profit`. The law is clear: those who hold such offices (i.e. those who get a salary from a government, central or state or benefit otherwise) can`t be Members.  

It is an important issue and one would have expected editors and their leader writers to be falling over themselves to pronounce on the matter. Many did but while doing so also revealed their political dilemmas. Few pointed out, however, as an academic from Singapore recently did, that thanks to the regional parties it was the Lok Sabha that has become the House of the States, which was how the Rajya Sabha was conceptualized initially.   

The Hindu informed readers in a sensible way. "The principle is that legislators should not become amenable to the influence of the executive… The objective of Articles 102 (1) and 191 (1) — which prohibit MPs and MLAs from holding any "office of profit" under the Government of India or that of any State — is to ensure that legislators do not come under the obligation of the executive through receiving pecuniary or other benefit from it. Ms. Bachchan is the chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council, a position she was appointed to after she got elected to the Rajya Sabha. Her contention that the UPFDC post is not an office of profit as she received no salary may, on the face of it, have a right-minded ring. But it is legally unsustainable."

The Telegraph discussed the Rajya Sabha. "There is always a risk of the Rajya Sabha becoming a space for the doling out of patronage to loyals. Given the prevalence of such abuse, and also the inherent anomalous nature in the very idea of a "house of elders", it would be a good idea to think of a different kind of a house altogether, election to which might be based on merit and not pedigree."

All did, however, dwell on the politics of it. The Hindu said that the Samajwadi party which made her a Member "has portrayed Ms. Bachchan`s disqualification as a political conspiracy and raised questions over the status of some Congress legislators, including Sonia Gandhi, who hold public positions." 

In the context of Sonia Gandhi, only the Pioneer pointed out that "t he BJP and the Samajwadi Party want Ms Sonia Gandhi disqualified because she is chairperson of the National Advisory Council and a plethora of Nehru-Gandhi memorial trusts."  

The Telegraph said that given the law it would be "quite pointless on the part of the Samajwadi Party to try politicizing the issue. It would be equally a waste of time if Ms Bachchan decides to move the Supreme Court."

The Indian Express said "the axe now falling upon her could clear away so very many of her parliamentary colleagues...The manner in which recommendations to this effect have been hastened to Rashtrapati Bhavan, however, threatens to engulf the Election Commission in charges of politicisation and manipulation… The air is suddenly rife with allegations of various political parties benefiting their legislators with responsibilities that could amount to offices of profit... a relook at the law is due."

The Pioneer pointed out that "The Trinamool Congress has produced a list of Left Front MPs who, it argues, should be thrown out of Parliament for, among other things, simultaneous membership of district development committees. If every complaint is taken to its logical conclusion - or absurdity - then, very soon, the two Houses of Parliament will have a problem gathering a quorum."  

The Hindustan Times and The Deccan Herald did not comment. Par for the course.

Contact: Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com