Mid-term elections in Delhi? What does 20 AAP MLAs disqualification mean?

The recommended action against AAP MLAs brings into question the offices that are routinely distributed by state governments with large majorities but few ministerships to offer their MLAs

Does the disqualification of 20 Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) members of legislative Assembly (MLAs) by the Election Commission mean that there will be mid-term elections in Delhi? Actually, it means much more than that.
 
It brings into question the issue of ‘parliamentary secretaries’ and other such offices, including chairmanship of boards, and raises profound questions for the future, on loaves and fishes that are routinely distributed as largesse by governments (such as the AAP government in Delhi) which have large majorities and not enough ministerships to pass around to all their elected MLAs.
 
But first things first. AAP has 66 MLAs in the 70-member Delhi Assembly. So, it will not lose its majority even if 20 are disqualified. However, its majority gets narrower.

 

The Election Commission order ‘recommends’ disqualification of these MLAs because prior sanction of the Lieutenant Governor was not taken to create the position of a parliamentary secretary and the perks given to them were, therefore, illegal.
 
This is the nub of the problem. Is the post of parliamentary secretary an office of profit? When these MLAs were made parliamentary secretaries in 2015, were they occupying a position that constituted an office of profit? If so, should they have resigned before contesting elections?
 
The matter is being heard by the High Court – it is sub judice – so the Election Commission has merely recommended disqualification. When the actual disqualification will take place depends on the outcome of the court hearing.

 
But think about it. If the position of parliamentary secretaries and chairmanship of boards, etc, is deemed an office of profit, MLAs in most state governments could be guilty of breaking the law.
 
AAP’s argument is that the parliamentary secretaries do not draw any salary; all they get are perks to facilitate their work – an office car, some secretarial assistance, etc.
 
However, the Supreme Court says all these perks constitute ‘profit’.
 
The central government – read home ministry/Lieutenant Governor (LG) – says “having no legal sanction” is based on the fact that there is no such post under the existing statute. Such appointments, if any, would require the prior sanction of the Lieutenant Governor, which was never taken. Besides, several Supreme Court judgments have clearly stated that an "office of profit" is deemed not by salary alone but by "perks", which in this case would be occupying office space in the Secretariat and availing of official cars. Whatever the case, the disqualification is sure to open up a pandora’s box of politics.