Governments are supposed to govern, and its members are supposed to set an example to the country. By extension, so are legislators. The UPA government hasn't done a great job of governing so far. And as for setting an example, it has been a shambles. The latest instance of this has been exposed by none other than the President himself. By sending back the Office of Profit Amendment Bill""Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006, to give it its proper name""he has fired a missile that is more powerful than any that he might have designed as one of India's leading rocket scientists. It is noteworthy that Presidents don't send back Bills unless they are mighty displeased. The law minister has been blathering on TV saying that there are no legal infirmities in the Bill and as such the President doesn't have a leg to stand on. He may well be right on the technicality, but Mr Abdul Kalam isn't pointing to legal bungles by his ministry. What Mr Kalam is drawing his countrymen's attention to is something a bit more substantial, something that the law minister and his colleagues in the government and Parliament seem to have difficulty in comprehending: the moral dimensions of what the government proposed and Parliament disposed in such an unseemly hurry. | |
| As for the legal technicality, Fali Nariman, about as distinguished a lawyer as one can get, has termed the Bill "illegal", "wholly arbitrary" and "Constitutionally impermissible". Mr Nariman's argument is that the new law is "lawless" as it completely contravenes Article 102 of the Constitution, which bars legislators from holding any office of profit under the Union government or any state government other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder. His point is that the Bill that the President has refused to sign would enable legislators who already hold such offices of profit to carry on as if nothing is expected of them in the observance of the Constitutional provision. He also says that this is a "legislative sleight of hand", to remove by law a Constitutional transgression that was already in existence. There will of course be those who disagree with Mr Nariman, and there is precedent for the courts approving other legislation with retrospective effect. However, there is certainly merit to the argument that the scope of the Bill is such as to render Article 102 virtually irrelevant""and surely there must be something wrong with that. |
| |
| The question that has not been asked in all of this is why it is so important to exempt such a large number of posts from the purview of Article 102. Why, for instance, is it vitally important for the Speaker to head a local development body in Shantiniketan? Or for a member of Parliament to chair the Indian Council for Cultural Relations? The silence points to the real issue, which is that when it comes to things that benefit them, our "leaders" are very quick on the "aye" button. Why, even that upholder of moral values, the CPI(M)""a beneficiary from the amendment""has been issuing unctuous statements. Its stand is that the Constitution must prevail. And what does the Constitution say? If Parliament sends back the Bill to the President for his assent, he has no option but to sign on the dotted line. Let us observe the letter of the law, the CPI(M) spokeswoman is saying, to hell with its spirit. |
| |
|
| |
