Sword hangs over several MPs, MLAs as SC rejects Jaya's plea

 

NEW DELHI: Throwing fresh light on a controversial topic, the Supreme Court on Monday held that a Member of Parliament can be disqualified for holding an office of profit whether he received any pecuniary gain or not, if it is proved that the office in question itself was one of profit.
    
"What was material was not if the person actually received any remuneration or pecuniary gain but whether the office s/he held was itself of one of profit," a Bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal said while dismissing Jaya Bachchan's petition challenging her disqualification as a Rajya Sabha member.

 

Going by the majority of its decisions in the last five decades on the issue of office of profit, the court endorsed the Election Commission's opinion on the subject.
    
Maintaining that the law on this issue was well settled since 1954, the Bench dismissed Jaya's petition observing "...the question whether the petitioner actually received any pecuniary gain is not material..."

 

Senior counsel Fali Nariman had requested the court on her behalf to clarify the legal position as there were several cases of legislators from various states, pending before the Election Commission which was "wielding the stick" on them on the office of profit issue.

 

Jaya had sought a declaration as "null and void" the March 16 Presidential notification issued on the advice of the Election Commission recommending her disqualification as a Rajya Sabha member for holding an office of profit as chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Corporation. She had claimed she never received pecuniary gains from the post.

 

She had claimed the cases decided by the apex court under Article 102(1)(a) and Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution held that even where an office carried remuneration or pay, in the absence of proof of any actual pecuniary gain to the holder from that office, s/he cannot be said to be holding "an office of profit".

Bachchan was disqualified as a member of the Rajya Sabha on March 16. Her disqualification was with retrospective effect from July 14, 2004, 10 days after her election on July 4, 2004 when she was appointed to the film council post.

 

The Bharatiya Janata Party said the Supreme Court's dismissal of Bachchan's petition was on "expected lines" and a similar fate awaited Sonia Gandhi had she not resigned.
    
"The decision of the apex court is on expected lines. The Constitution, procedure and law are clear and all the processes were completed in Bachchan's case. The same fate awaited Congress President Sonia Gandhi if she had not resigned", party spokesman Prakash Javadekar told reporters here.
    
The BJP, he said, does not want any dilution of Articles 102 and 103 of the Constitution.

 

"The matter (office of profit) is now in the court of the people," SP general secretary and Lok Sabha member Beni Prasad Verma told reporters.
   
He claimed that more than 100 Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of various political parties from across the country were holding offices of profit.

 

Verma said that the Centre should have thought about bringing in legislation in the Parliament to settle the matter before the disqualification of Bachchan.

 

The Congress reacted cautiously to the judgement, saying the apex court had considered only one aspect, but refrained from commenting in detail until studying the order fully.
    
"The court has dealt with an aspect... We will study it carefully," party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi told reporters.

 

He did not say when a bill on the office of profit issue would come up in Parliament. He said widest possible consultations have been held by the government in the wake of the office of profit row.