The AAP when it started was the culmination of India Against Corruption, a movement that shook the Indian political establishment. AAP was supposed be the party that changed Indian politics, one with a difference, now 5 years later, it lays in tatters, battered from all sides as its utopian idealism was replaced by the hard realities of life.
Eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan's ouster lead to serious loss of credibility for AAP. But an unheralded lawyer also named Prashant has dealt a much severe blow to AAP run Delhi government on Friday.
The AAP when it started was the culmination of India Against Corruption, a movement that shook the Indian political establishment. AAP was supposed be the party that changed Indian politics, one with a difference, now 5 years later, it lays in tatters, battered from all sides as its utopian idealism was replaced by the hard realities of life.
It has suffered several setbacks since the party halted the Modi juggernaut in Delhi in 2015, winning astounding 67 out of 70 seats. Things however have been up and down since then with the party fragmenting, with stalwarts like Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan leaving, and Kumar Vishwas at loggerheads.
There were electoral setbacks in Punjab and Goa, but perhaps the Office of Profits case is one of its biggest setbacks since the party was launched.
On Friday, the EC recommended the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs for allegedly holding an ‘Office of Profit’, which could lead to their disqualification. While the loss of 20 MLAS, thanks to AAP’s brute majority in Delhi, wouldn’t cause the state government to fall, it will certainly send ripples of shock through the party’s ranks.
And this huge setback to AAP was precipitated by a young, almost unknown lawyer called Prashant Patel.
A member of the Hindu Legal Cell, Prashant has taken on Aamir khan, Raju Hirani and Kanhaiya Kumar in the past. He filed an FIR against Aamir Khan and Rajkumar Hirani for their film PK, filed a intervention in the Supreme Court when Kanhaiya Kumar sought bail and also filed a complaint against former CBFC chief Leela Samson.
However, his biggest splash has undoubtedly been the ‘Office of Profit’ case, when he filed petitions against 21 MLAs whom CM Kejriwal appointed as parliamentary secretaries. ‘Office of Profit’ cases have led to the dismissals of two MLAS from UP and even claimed the scalps of Sonia Gandhi and Jaya Bachchan but this is indisputably the biggest case of its kind.
From UP’s Fatehpur district, he studied Physics and Creative designing in a minority Christian college affiliated to Allahabad University before studying law.
He completed his LLB from Charan Singh University in Greater Noida and practised in Delhi where he worked on family and criminal cases. Things however changed in March 2015 when he filed an office of profit petition against 21 MLAs whom Kejriwal had appointed as parliamentary secretaries.
He also wrote to erstwhile President Mukherjee questioning the legality of the move, and the former President rejected a law framed by Delhi’s AAP govt to prevent the disqualification of MLAs.
Patel had earlier said: “I am very happy that my struggle has paid off. When the appointments were made in March, I felt that something was not right. I read up on the issue and also checked its constitutional validity. After much research, I found the move was unconstitutional and filed a petition with the Presidents’ secretariat.”
In the initial days, he said that his efforts didn’t lead to fruit and although he filed multiple RTIs, letters to the President’s Secretariat. he didn’t expect things to become this big.
Talking to ANI, the petitioner Prashant Patel said the AAP government flouted the rule, which says 15 percent of the total strength in the assemblies in big states and 10 percent in small states can be made ministers.
‘When AAP formed government in Delhi on February 14, 2015, then 21 AAP MLAs were made parliamentary secretary on March 13, 2015, with the powers of deputy ministers. In this way, AAP government made 28 ministers instead of seven. Therefore, these appointments came under office of profit. I made a complaint with the President on June 19, 2015, against these appointments. The President forwarded my complaint to the Election Commission, which further issued notices to the 21 MLAs," Patel said.
He further added that after the MLAs filed their reply with the election body, the oral hearings in this case were completed on March 27, 2017.
"Oral hearings started from July 14, 2016, till March 27, 2017. On June 23, 2017, the ECI said that the said MLAs held position of parliamentary secretary for 17 months. Delhi's Chief Secretary told the ECI that the government spent Rs 11 lakh for allotting rooms in Delhi Assembly. The MLAs are not entitled to get rooms at the Assembly premises," Patel added.
Responding to developments, Patel told TOI: "This will restore public faith in the constitutional authorities and a message has gone now that politicians doing illegal acts won't be spared.”
He added that, "First of all, the Delhi HC has no locus as the EC has only answered a reference to the President. Do the MLA's want HC to stay such a communication? The problem is AAP doesn't believe in any Constitution, high court or Supreme Court. If the President disqualifies them, they will abuse him also."
Praise for Patel on Twitter:
Hours after the ECI recommended their disqualification, the affected MLAs mentioned the application before a bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal for urgent hearing, which was listed before Justice Palli. The hearing on the matter began around 5.30 PM.
Earlier in the day, the ECI had recommended to the President the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs for allegedly holding offices of profit.
In its opinion sent to the President, the ECI said by being parliamentary secretaries, they held office of profit and were liable to be disqualified as MLAs of the Delhi Assembly.
The proceedings against Jarnail Singh were dropped after he resigned as the Rajouri Garden MLA to contest the Punjab Assembly polls.
The 20 MLAs set to be disqualified include, Adarsh Shastri (Dwarka), Alka Lamba (Chandni Chowk), Anil Bajpai (Gandhi Nagar), Avtar Singh (Kalkaji), Kailash Gahlot (Najafgarh) -- who is also a minister -- Madan Lal (Kasturba Nagar), Manoj Kumar (Kondli), Naresh Yadav (Mehrauli), Nitin Tyagi (Laxmi Nagar), Praveen Kumar (Jangpura).
Others are: Rajesh Gupta (Wazirpur), Rajesh Rishi Janakpuri), Sanjeev Jha (Burari), Sarita Singh (Rohtas Nagar), Som Dutt (Sadar Bazar), Sharad Kumar (Narela), Shiv Charan Goel (Moti Nagar), Sukhbir Singh (Mundka), Vijendar Garg (Rajinder Nagar) and Jarnail Singh (Tilak Nagar).
In their pleas, they have sought a stay on the proceedings before the ECI as well as any communication to the President by the poll panel.
They have contended that no hearing on the merits of the case has taken place before the ECI and no evidence has been even led by complainant Prashant Patel, nor any opportunity has been granted to the petitioners before the ECI.
With inputs from PTI
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Prashant Patel and Arvind Kejriwal")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}