Morung Express News
Dimapur | April 3
A day before the conduct of the special session of the Legislative Assembly to discuss the issue of disqualification from membership of the House, the Nagaland Pradesh Congress Committee today said it appears that the sole intent of summoning the assembly is to seek the interpretation of the Advocate General of the State on ‘The Nagaland State Legislative Members’ (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1964. It has strongly urged “all people including the elected representatives not to destroy the very foundation of democracy.”
Both the Vice President and Chairman of the Legal Cell of the NPCC today said in separate releases that in a parliamentary democracy, it is unimaginable that the Parliament or the Assembly can function without the office of the leader of opposition. NPCC Vice President Khriedi Theunuo said “any attempt to remove the office of the Leader of Opposition, either by legislation or otherwise, will be a direct attempt to murder parliamentary democracy.”
Citing Supreme Court cases to drive home his point, Theunuo said, “If the Leader of Opposition is to be disqualified for allegedly holding office of profit, then every MLA will be liable to be disqualified for holding an office since he is in receipt of salary, allowances and other perks and privileges and since he holds a post as MLA.”
He added that however, it must be noted that the MLAs, like the Leader of Opposition, are not holding the posts under the Government and are not, therefore, liable to disqualification under the provisions of Article 191 of the Constitution of India.
Noting that the said Act has been recently published in the local press for public consumption, NPCC Legal Cell Chairman A Zhimomi said, “It further appears that the publication of the said Act in the local papers is to convey the impression that the Chief Minister of the State does not attract disqualification as the Chairmanships of the Organizations held by him fall under the exemptions not under purview of the definition of ‘Office of profit.’”
Stating that the obvious inference that is sought to be conveyed is that the Leader of Opposition is an office of profit, the release said, “In Parliament/ Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition by his party and his nomenclature is formally recognized by the Speaker.”
Congress says Imkong’s status is unique because:
• The Leader of Opposition is chosen from within his/her own party. It is not the Government who appoints the Leader of the Opposition. The Government also does not have any control over the functions and duties of the Leader of the Opposition.
• The pay and allowances of the Leader of the Opposition is determined by an Act of the Assembly, in similar manner as the Chief Minister, Speaker, Council of Ministers and MLAs. The point of note is, if the Leader of the Opposition is considered to be holding an Office of profit, the same yardstick would also have to be applied to each and every elected member. This fact has to be differentiated from holding additional offices such as Chairman, Vice Chairman, Member of Committees, Boards, Authorities, etc.
• It is an indisputable fact that an MLA is not a public servant. A public servant is someone who holds an office of profit. Therefore it is even absurd to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition holds an office of profit.
