The President’s order rejecting the disqualification of 27 AAP MLAs is a victory for the party
It was a watered down case in the first place and may have taken around two years to get resolved but the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) stands vindicated at a time when the Opposition electoral strategy is still nebulous in the run-up to the general elections. President Ram Nath Kovind has dismissed a plea to disqualify the party’s 27 MLAs for allegedly holding office of profit by virtue of being appointed as chairpersons of Rogi Kalyan Samitis attached to various Delhi hospitals. He acted on the advice of the Election Commission, which found that there was no merit in the plea considering that the roles were advisory in capacity, did not entail official remuneration and the system itself was in use by past Governments. So the complaint against the MLAs had no legal standing as the advisory role was an extension of or rather akin to social service. The question though is that the resolution of the case was allowed to drag on for two years — the complaint was registered in 2016 — and there can be no retrospective compensation for a damage done to image. Especially when it targets one ruling party while others have already been beneficiaries. After all, the Rogi Kalyan Samitis were set up by the Sheila Dikshit Government on October 5, 2009. In July 2014, then Union Health Minister Harsh Vardhan had even told Parliament that MPs/ MLAs will be the chairpersons of the committees. Even the National Rural Health Mission website clearly states that an MP/MLA can become a chairman/member. If these were fairly well-known, then it is a tad unfair that AAP was targetted as a party bending the rules and overarching its powers.
The “office of profit” row blew up, in no small part aided by both the Congress and the BJP, after the AAP romped home with a massive verdict in the Delhi Assembly elections of 2015. And while the AAP legislators have crossed one hurdle, they have still to be cleared in a complaint questioning the appointment of AAP MLAs as parliamentary secretaries, the petitioner claiming that the Constitution bars MPs and MLAs from accepting Government positions which carry some financial remuneration or any other benefit such as office space or even a car. Any violation of this provision results in the disqualification of the legislator, who should be independent of the executive. To be very fair to AAP, it has consistently maintained that its MLAs were up for any kind of hearing before the commission and would subject themselves to inquiry in case the evidence of profit was found. In March, the Delhi High Court had even annulled the disqualification of MLAs on “office of profit” grounds and referred the case back to the Election Commission. The AAP, by claiming the moral high ground, has held its own despite political vilification and truth be told, displayed some maturity by not crying foul but seeking recourse through law.