The May 10 Parliament session set to deliberate on the office of profit issue is already generating country wide interest with the Election Commission doing its own bit of awareness campaign by putting up on its website the names of over 200 MLAs and a list of 43 MPs whose disqualification has been sought. That the EC has officially listed these names would only mean that the references made by the President and Governors of different States still stands and the MPs and MLAs under legal scrutiny should in no way consider themselves as being cleared of the charges. It will be highly interesting to observe the stand being adopted by the various political parties on what is essentially a constitutional dilemma that legislators from every party across the length and breadth of the country are being confronted with.
While the moral debate over Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s resignation as MP over the issue has long subsided, more MPs and MLAs will now find themselves in a moral dilemma on whether to quit or hold on to the offices of profit, something that is barred under India’s electoral laws. There is no doubt that the ambiguity in the present definition of the term office of profit is partly to be blamed for the current mess. And while it is accepted that a more clear and definite legal injunction needs to be injected into the term ‘office of profit’, it should also be absolutely clear that politicians should not be allowed to circumvent the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Any intent of political parties out to make changes in the present law to protect their office and the profit accrued from it, should not be allowed. It would also be incumbent on the judiciary to intervene if at all any new act is aimed at diluting the spirit of the statute. For parliament and the politicians who occupy its seat of power, at best they should define more clearly those offices that needs to be exempted by law without in any way being motivated to protect the membership of MPs/MLAs who are holding offices of profit.
The Election Commission on its part will have to maintain consistency as per the meaning of the law after its recommendation to disqualify Jaya Bachchan from the membership of the Rajya Sabha. The Supreme Court may likewise have to step in at some point of time and assist in the clarification of the term “office of profit” under the Centre or the State Government and also enlighten under what situation or circumstance a person is deemed to be holding an office of profit.
For the moment though, Parliament as the highest law making body of the country will have to be given the first opportunity to address the present constitutional dilemma. How honestly they are able to do their work remains to be seen. At the end of the day, the supremacy of the constitution will have to be upheld.
