EC defers hearing on AAP MLAs' disqualification plea to Aug 19

The Election Commission today posted to August 19 the hearing on a petition seeking disqualification of 21 AAP legislators in an 'office of profit' case after the MLAs questioned the validity of a second set of documents filed against them.
The AAP legislators, whose appointment as parliamentary secretaries is under challenge, said the EC should consider only the first petition filed by Prashant Patel, who moved the plea before the poll body on which the President had sought opinion of the Commission.
They said the Commission cannot consider the second set of documents filed by Patel after the President had already sought opinion on the first petition.

They insisted the second set of documents were not maintainable. Patel, however, argued that the second set was not a fresh petition but a response to details sought by the EC.
The MLAs were of the view that EC should have sought the details from Delhi government and not the petitioner.
Following the arguments, the commission posted the matter for another hearing on August 19.

Nineteen out of the 21 MLAs were present at the hearing. Two could not attend the proceedings. "Some of the MLAs said their lawyers were not present," Patel said.
On July 27, the commission had rejected pleas of Congress, BJP and Delhi government to implead them as parties to the petition in the alleged office-of-profit case.

The EC issued notices to the AAP legislators in June after the petition was filed before it by Patel.
The MLAs responded to the notices, saying there was no "pecuniary benefit" associated with the post and it comes without any remuneration or power.
They had also sought personal hearings before the EC.
Delhi's AAP government had appointed 21 parliamentary secretaries to assist its ministers.
Subsequently, the city government sought to amend the Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1997, so as to exempt parliamentary secretaries from disqualification provisions in 'office of profit' cases.
However, the President refused to give his assent to the Bill.