While debates and opinions are being drawn dawn from various intellectuals on issue of Office of Profit, it is also important to have a look on the contents of Central Law relating to removal of Parliament Prevention Disqualification Act, 1959, the Act in Section 3 provides certain offices of profit not to disqualify the holder there of for being chosen as or for being a Member of Parliament.
And besides many other post being specifically mentioned under the Act, the two provisions in the light of Jaya Bachan’s case became relevant points for discussion. Clause (h) of Section 3 of the Act states, the office of chairman or member of a committee whether consisting of one or more members set up temporarily for the purpose of advising the Government or any other authority in respect of any matter of public importance or for the purpose of making an inquiry into, or collecting statistics in respect of any such matter if the holder of such office is not entitled to any renumeration other than compensatory allowances.
Clause (i) of section 3 states the office of chairman, Director or member of any statutory or non statutory body other than any such body as is referred to in clause (h) if the holder of such office is ot entitled to any remuneration other than compensatory allowances, but excluding (1) The office of Chairman of any statutory or non statutory body specified in part 1 of the schedule. (2) The office of Chairman or Secretary of any statutory or non statutory body specified in part 2 of the schedule. (3) The office of Deputy Chairman of the non statutory body specified in part 3 of the schedule.
In the above two clauses and schedule in the Act, there is no mention of the post including the Chairman of U.P Film Development Corporation as held by Jaya Bachan nor the post of Chairman of National Advisory Council as held by Congress President Sonia Gandhi and thus under such precedent, the resignation of Sonia Gandhi in the light of Jaya Bachan disqualification on Office of Profit is the right decision for she may not stand to the scrutiny of Law enforce for time being.
So also as contended by the NPF spokesman that CM is exempted under schedule 8 of section (2) of the Nagaland State Legislative Members (Removal of Disqualification Act, 1964) stands arguable for the Act does spell the Chairman of Nagaland Sports Association nor the Chairman of Nagaland Bamboo Mission involving huge amount and duties performs to the state.
On other hand, the status of the Leader of the opposition is the recognition by the Speaker of the state assembly and opposition leader is neither appointed nor perform duties for the state, however, whatever be the argument the Governor on the advise of the Election Commission of India will have to pronounced its order as per the constitution, however, the ruling DAN Government does not need to worry because assuming to disqualify few MLA’s will not reduce the Government to minority as 44 MLA’s are in support of the present DAN Government.
On other hand, today our public have come to know that it is because of this office of profit although such removal Act exists in every state, our elected representatives who ever is I power becomes crorepatti within no time for taking advantage of our public office in doing many things for one’s personal favour and for which it is firmly believed that the Parliament will legislate proper Law and define office of profit clearly to avoid illegal gain in future by the people’s representatives.
Z. Chakhesang
Concerned Citizen Kohima
