[Assam] Office of Profit

[Dilip/Dil Deka]

I was wondering what  "office of profit" meant and how it was illegal for an MP to hold an office of profit. Finally I saw this article in the Assam Tribune that explained some of it. I'd think there are others who also are confused and they may find the article useful.
  Dilip
  ============================================================================
  Office of profit
  Sonia Gandhi has done it again. Ending all speculation about her disqualification from membership of the Lok-Sabha for holding on office of profit as chairperson of the National Advisory Council and anguished over attempts by some persons to create an atmosphere that the government and the Parliament were being used for her benefit, she has resigned from Lok-Sabha and also from the chairpersonship of the National Advisory Council. Her resignation has been hailed by the Congress Party as the vindication of high moral principle maintained by Smt Gandhi in the political arena. Following the disqualification of Jaya Bachchan from Rajya Sabha, political parties across the board are demanding disqualification of rival MPs for holding offices of profit. The disqualification case of Amar Singh, Samajwadi Party leader is at present under hearing at the Election Commission on the ground of his holding office of profit as chairman of the UP Development Council. The Samajwadi Party has
 petitioned disqualification of Kapila Vatsayan from Rajya Sabha for holding office of profit as chairperson of Indira Gandhi National Centre for Art and Culture, besides leading its loudest voice to the chorus against Sonia Gandhi. The Trinamool Congress has levelled allegation against 10 MPs of the Left Front including the Speaker Somnath Chatterjee of holding offices of profit and has demanded their disqualification. The Telegu Desam Party wants Union Minister T Sabbi Rami Reddy to go for occupying the office of chairman of Trinamool Tirupathi Devasthanam Board and disqualification of Dr Karan Singh for holding the office of Indian Council for Cultural Relations. Dr Karan Singh, Kapila Vatsayana have followed the leader and resigned from Rajya Sabha. It appears, there are as many as 40 MPs who are holding offices of profit and face the threat of disqualification including the 10 MPs of the Left Front. Even the BJP MP V K Malhotra is accused of holding office of profit as chairman
 of the Sports Authority of India. In this context, Samajwadi leader and Rajya Sabha MP Amar Singh’s comment that at this rate, there would be no one left in Parliament bears significance.

The office of profit has not been defined in the Constitution of India. Article 102 of the Constitution of India disqualities a member of either House of Parliament, for holding office of profit under the Government of India or the government of any State except those offices declared by Parliament by law not to disquality its holder. Parliament enacted Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 giving a list of offices, holders of which are exempted from disqualification. The Act has not been amended to include new offices created by the Central and the State governments over the years putting the MPs holding such offices liable for disqualification under Article 102. The object behind this Article is that a person who is elected to the legislature should be free to carry on his duties fearlessly without being subjected to any pressure by the government. There should not be a conflict between his duties as member of the legislature and his employment so that purity of the
 legislature is unaffected. In the absence of a clear-cut definition of the office of profit, there is a grey area for which Jaya Bachchan has approached the Supreme Court to classify the term “office of profit” in the Constitution.

In the long history of the Parliament, only two MPs have been disqualified for holding office of profit. Before Jaya Bachchan, an ADMK MP R Mohanarangan was disqualified for holding the office of the Special Representative of the Tamil Nadu government in 1982. By disqualifying Jaya Bachchan, the Election Commission poked its hands in a nest of hornets. Besides the complaint against the MPs, a large number of complaint against MLAs have also reached the Election Commission demanding their disqualification for holding offices of profit. The UPA government’s handling of this controversy shows indecision and haste. It hastily adjourned both the Houses sine-die with a view to promulgate an ordinance to save Sonia Gandhi from disqualification. Such a move would have degraded Sonia Gandhi from the high moral ground she acquired after declining the Prime Ministership in May, 2004, to an ordinary politician seeking power and position. After her resignation, the urgency of an Ordinance no
 longer exists. The UPA government should now re-convene both Houses of Parliament, bring forward an amendment to the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification Act), 1959 removing the deficiencies in the Act so that the lawmakers are not disqualified as lawbreakers in future.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060326/5db7cb49/attachment.htm>