A K Bhattacharya: Irrelevance of a House committee

NEW DELHI DIARY

In 1964, M Jafer Ali was appointed as a consultant to the Union government in the ministry of irrigation and power for a period of one year. As a consultant, he was required to advise the ministry on problems facing irrigation and power projects. He functioned from his normal place of residence and charged a fee of Rs 150 per day. There was a ceiling on what he could earn through this consultancy. That amount was fixed at Rs 12,000 for the whole year.

The government's decision to appoint Mr Ali, however, became a major controversy because he also happened to be a nominated member of the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh. The Election Commission took note of the controversy and held that by accepting the appointment as a consultant, Mr Ali had held an office of profit. Consequently, he was disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh.

Again in 1982, R Mohanarangan, a member of the Rajya Sabha, had to vacate his seat for holding the post of special representative of Tamil Nadu. What was his mistake? Well, in his capacity as special representative of Tamil Nadu, Mr Mohanarangan got benefits like the use of a government car, occupation of the Tamil Nadu House and use of a telephone. There was no salary. Yet, the Election Commission decreed that Mr Mohanarangan had occupied an office of profit under the government because the position of special representative carried a salary attached to the post.

Even as early as in 1953, the chief election commissioner had given a significant ruling on the question of what constituted an office of profit. While deciding a matter pertaining to the disqualification of some members of the Vindhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, the chief election commissioner held that enjoying any profit from an office or declining it was immaterial as long as there was some profit attached to the office. In other words, a member of Parliament or an assembly cannot argue against disqualification just because he may have refused to accept the salary that went along with the office.

Forget about the power and facilities Congress President Sonia Gandhi enjoyed as the chairperson of the National Advisory Council or what power Jaya Bachchan wielded as the chairperson of the UP Film Development Council over the grant of interest subsidy on film projects considered by Film Bandhu. With all these different rulings available in the public domain, it is a little puzzling to find why the current bunch of parliamentarians are so agitated about what should constitute an office of profit and when a member of Parliament or an assembly should be disqualified.

For the uninitiated, let it be stated that Parliament does have a joint committee on offices of profit, which meets fairly regularly and outlined the various issues and made important suggestions on this issue as late as in December 2005. While debating whether members of Parliament should be disqualified if they were appointed members of the Space Commission or its advisor, the committee outlined the basic principles on this question. "The Committee feel that the basic principle underlying the imposition of disqualification under articles 102 (1) (a) and 191 (1)(a) of the Constitution is that a member of the Legislature should not be indebted to Government by accepting an 'Office of Profit' under the Government and thus compromise his independence," the report stated.

The committee even identified three criteria to determine if holding a certain office should disqualify a member of Parliament under the law. These are: a) "Whether the holder draws any remuneration, like sitting fee, honorarium, salary etc. i.e. any remuneration other than the 'compensatory allowance'; b) whether the body in which an office is held, exercises executive, legislative or judicial powers or confers powers of disbursement of funds, allotment of lands, issue of licences, etc., or gives powers of appointment, grant of scholarships, etc; c) and whether the body in which an office is held wields influence or power by way of patronage." The committee noted that if reply to any of the above criteria was in the affirmative, then the offices in question would entail disqualification of the parliamentarian.

Mind you, this report was submitted to Parliament less than four months ago. It is a pity that the government has forgotten its existence. Instead, it has begun a de novo exercise to define an office of profit and bring out a list of offices whose occupation will not disqualify a parliamentarian. There is no denying that expanding the list of such offices can further dilute the basic principle of preserving the independence of a member of the legislature. Why can't the Manmohan Singh government take a close look at the latest report of the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit and adhere to the principles outlined there? Or has the government already made up its mind on diluting the principles outlined by the parliamentary joint committee on offices of profit?