CPM for closer look at JPC norms

Under attack from the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal, which has accused 10 of its MPs of holding offices of profit, the CPI(M) has recommended a "dual strategy" to deal with the issue.

It wants a "closer look" at criteria identified by a joint parliamentary committee in December 2005 to determine if holding certain offices should lead to disqualification of MPs. It wants a comprehensive law defining the criteria.

The CPI(M) wants this exercise to be urgently undertaken even as, in the meantime, initiatives are taken to amend the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, to include "offices that are today excluded in order to resolve the present crisis", says the latest issue of its mouthpiece, People's Democracy.

"Such a dual strategy must be adopted so that the country can move ahead to address the more basic and urgent issues aimed at improving the livelihood of the people," said an editorial piece.

The criteria identified by the JPC in 2005 are: Whether the person holding the office draws any remuneration like sitting fee, honorarium, salary etc, that is, any remuneration other than the "compensatory allowance"; whether the body in which an office is held exercises executive, legislative or judicial power or confers powers of disbursement of funds, allotment of lands, issue of licences etc or gives powers of appointment, grant of scholarships etc.; and whether the body in which an office is held wields influence or power by way of patronage.

"A closer look at these criteria and a comprehensive law defining the criteria which shall determine the categorisation of offices of profit needs to be urgently undertaken," said the editorial.

The article said MPs and MLAs often held certain offices to provide relief to people in various areas and discharge of such responsibilities is "concomitant" with their duties as elected representatives.

"Viewed from this point of view, the various offices held by many members on a voluntary basis without drawing any remuneration etc. cannot be considered offices of profit. This, however, is an interpretation. This is not the law. And, that is the problem," the article says.