Did you know that the great state of Meghalaya has four chief ministers? One is sworn in by the governor and the other three are holding the rank and enjoying the privileges of a chief minster. You didn’t know that? Well, then welcome to the world of Office FOR Profit.
We are just finished with the MPs’ emoluments saga. But this is only one of the several rip-offs. Another one relates to the salaries of MLAs, some of whom are better paid than MPs. But altogether, another one is the one concerned with Office of Profit.
We inherited the concept of Office of Profit from the Westminster system, where the concept has existed for several hundred years and where holders of certain offices have been barred from membership of the House of Commons. In fact, the definition of Office of Profit was so strict that, until the 1920s, any member of the Commons who was appointed minister had to resign his seat and contest again.
The major reason underpinning the concept of Office of Profit is that an MP/MLA should not be corrupted by executive patronage and should be free from possible conflicts of interest which might distort her behaviour as an independent member of the legislature and her freedom to represent the best interests of his constituents. Our founding fathers introduced this model of rectitude in our Constitution — but for the past decades, we have been busy subverting Article 102(1)(a), which allows Parliament to exempt some offices; states can do the same under Article 191(1)(a).
In 2006, in the Jaya Bachchan case, the Supreme Court ruled, inter alia, “...what is relevant is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and not whether the person actually obtained a monetary gain”. Mrs Bachchan, an upright and honourable legislator, who earned absolutely nothing in terms of money or benefits as chairperson of the UP Film Development Corporation, was disqualified under Article 102(1)(a) for holding an Office of Profit not sanctioned by Parliament. Sonia Gandhi also resigned her seat (she was NAC chairperson) and sought re-election.
But do you think our friends in Parliament were going to take this lying down? No way. They had “political consensus across party lines”, a scary thought at the best of times, and amended the law — with retrospective effect! And when Parliament does this, will the states be far behind?
There are two major objections to occupation of Offices of Profit by legislators. First, they are often Offices FOR Profit and secondly, they subvert our laws.
An example of Office FOR Profit: Most states have a State Transport Corporation and the chairperson of that Corporation is normally a legislator. Does she have great expertise in the area of transportation? No. Does she have the reputation of a planner? No. The odds are she is a “hack” who wants a car with a red beacon, a free government house and the status of a Cabinet minister. Let us assume she sacrifices all these perks in the interest of the nation. But there are those juicy contracts for new buses, etc. where large sums of money are involved. Of course, our legislator, that paragon of virtue, cannot even dream of taking a “cut”. Then, the Corporation has a recruitment drive — well, a few of her relatives and constituents could get jobs and, knowing our politicians, there is, of course, no question of a quid pro quo; they allow merit to prevail!
There are many such Corporations that are milch cows for politicians.
A Congress member of the Rajya Sabha said that legislators should be on the boards of PSUs as they had time to spare. If they have time to spare, they could utilise it more effectively by having more sitting days in Parliament than poking their snouts into PSU troughs — once again looking for Offices FOR Profit.
A Left MP, however, demanded that corporate chiefs should also be barred from Parliament under this concept. But that is a misreading of the concept or an excess of ideological zeal. Whether one is the chairperson of UB or the general secretary of CITU, she is not holding an Office of Profit under the government. She would, of course, be expected to declare her “interest” to the presiding officer, something that is rarely done.
Now the second objection — subversion of legislation. There is a law restricting the number of members of the government to 10 per cent of the membership of the legislature (the percentage is higher for states with very small number of legislators). This law is a major problem in these days of coalitions and greedy politicians. Look at a state like UP (as an example) and the number of politicians who sit on some body or the other. And the intent to subvert the law is clear because, the day the law came into force, those who lost ministerial jobs were accommodated on boards of various Corporations. And UP is not an exception. The disease is endemic and has spread in great measure to all states — big and small.
Ideally, legislators should be barred from holding any Office of Profit. Like their emoluments, it is the legislators who currently decide on exempting certain positions from Office of Profit. Those political leaders who lay any claim to financial probity must ensure that these decisions are taken by an independent and open tribunal.
We need to send a signal to our legislators that the entry into the legislature does not give them additional rights to “milk” the people. This is not to say that there are not decent and honourable legislators who have served selflessly and effectively, but the mass of them have been milking the electorate from these Offices FOR Profit.
The author is a political commentator
