Most ill-advised

The good that men do is often interred with the offices they hold. This is something that can certainly be said of the 10 communist MPs, not to mention several from other parties, who hold offices of profit as defined under Article 102 of the Constitution. In order to prevent these 10 and the others from being disqualified, as required by the law, the government chose to expand the list of offices that are exempt from the application of the law. One of those who could have been disqualified is the Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath Chatterji. Earlier, Sonia Gandhi had resigned her seat in the Lok Sabha when it turned out that she also held an office of profit. Exemptions are allowed, as is an expansion of the list of offices that are exempted.

On May 17, Parliament passed an amending Bill that added new offices to the exempted list. When the amending Bill went to him for signature, the President sent it back on May 30, saying that it smacked of arbitrariness and suffered from "lack of uniformity", and arguing that it was incumbent upon the government to give reasons as to why some offices were to be exempt while others were not. Specifically, he wanted a definition that was "fair, reasonable and transparent" for granting exemption in a way that could be used by all legislatures in the country. He also wanted Parliament to look into the propriety of making the new law applicable with retrospective effect. These were perfectly justified requests, ones that the entire country would want. It would have done the government great credit if it had done as asked to, and would further have protected the amended law from legal challenge. In addition, since it is a fact that different states have reacted with equal lack of principle when faced with similar problems, clear guidelines in a central law would have helped frame the issue nationally. This much is self-evident.

But such is the moral ambivalence and hypocrisy with which the communists are afflicted that they have forced the government not to do the transparently right thing. The intention clearly is to protect a select few from being disqualified. The result is that the amending Bill is likely to be passed once again, as originally proposed and without any changes. Indeed, so great is the hypocrisy that the Left Front government of West Bengal has been engaged in a most unseemly row with the Election Commission, with the former refusing to reveal which MPs are holding the alleged offices of profit. Instead, it has questioned the Commission's credentials to seek this information. Going even further, it has also said that the President's request is "misplaced" because only Parliament has the right to make a law""as if anyone was disputing that right.

The episode has brought the entire political class under a cloud. It is reported that the government might set up a committee to re-define "office of profit". That would be adding insult to injury because such an activity should have preceded the passing of the amending Bill, not followed it. In fact, a large body of opinion in the country holds that the UPA government has made a mockery of the Constitution, and that the amended law will not stand up to challenge in the courts of law. Whether that is so or not, what is particularly galling is that this has happened with a government headed by a man who is widely respected for his faith in the country's institutions. Integrity doesn't come only in one guise. It has many aspects; and in respect of some of these, the UPA government has been found sadly wanting.