The Delhi High Court is likely to pronounce on Friday its verdict on pleas challenging disqualification 20 Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLAs for holding office of profit as Parliamentary Secretaries.
A Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Chander Shekhar had reserved judgment on February 28 after the MLAs, the Election Commission and other parties concerned concluded their arguments.
‘Natural justice’
The MLAs had told the court that the EC’s order disqualifying them for allegedly holding office of profit was passed in “complete violation of natural justice” as they were not given an opportunity to explain their stand before the poll panel.
The Bench was also requested by the former legislators to remand their case back to the poll panel with a direction to hear the matter afresh.
The MLAs had approached the court challenging their disqualification after President Ram Nath Kovind gave a nod to the EC’s recommendation.
Backing its recommendation to the President for the AAP MLAs’ disqualification, the poll panel had submitted that the legislators cannot claim they were not holding office of profit.
‘Precipitate measures’
The High Court had on January 24 refused to stay the Centre’s notification disqualifying the MLAs but restrained the Commission from taking any “precipitate measures” such as announcing dates for bypolls to fill the vacancies.
The Delhi government, led by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, had appointed parliamentary secretaries attached to government ministries after coming to power in March 2015.
However, a constitutional clause prohibits legislators or parliamentarians from holding any position with monetary or other benefits. Known as office of profit, the clause is aimed at reducing conflict of interest situations for public representatives.
The government had claimed that the appointments will facilitate smooth functioning.
It claimed that the secretaries will not receive any remuneration or perks from the administration, so that the exchequer does not face additional burden.
But this was challenged by advocate Prashant Patel, who made a representation to the President to disqualify them for holding office of profit. The President made a representation to the poll panel, which gave its opinion to disqualify them.
