With an intention to rescue Cabinet Minister Harak Singh Rawat, who may lose his Vidhan Sabha membership because he occupies the post of chairman of Uttarakhand Seeds & Terai Development Corporation (USTDC), categorised as an office of profit, Chief Minister Vijay Bahuguna is going to bring an ordinance to demit the posts of USTDC chairman and four others from disqualification criteria within the office of profit category. By doing this, the State Government is going to create embarrassment for the State Governor Dr Aziz Qureshi because if he signs the ordinance, he would elicit disdain for his office and be termed a Congress party agent only and if he refuses, he would set a benchmark for others.
legal analysts believe that Governor may ask the State Government to get the bill passed in Vidhan Sabha instead of giving approval to the ordinance because he has already received a complaint from BJP regarding violation of office of profit category.
Article 192, which talk on questions as to disqualifications of members states that if any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Article 191, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final. It further says that before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.
Bahuguna is saying that Rawat does not withdraw salary from this department; so it can't be criteria of disqualification. By saying this, the CM has tried to suppress the Opposition, who quite often raked this issue in all public forums. He also said that their Government is going to pass an ordinance to demit the posts from disqualification criteria within the office of profit category.
Now the CM is going to pass the ball into the court of Governor Dr Qureshi. If he gives approval, he will have to face Opposition's fury and he would not be able to retaliate against the allegations because of his constitutional post. If he would have not received complaint from Opposition, then he may have given his accent. Now, it would be difficult for him to approve.
Political analysts said that by saying this, Bahuguna has tried to salvage Rawat, but might have forgotten the decision of Supreme Court bench comprising Justices KG Balkrishanan, Dalveer Bhandari and DK Jain, of January 18, 2007 in the case of Dayanand Rayu Mandrekar and Chandrakant Uttam Chandankar who had challenged the judgment in the election petition number 1 & 2 of 2002. The appellants had first contended before the apex court that they were not holding an office of profit and were not receiving any salary or allowances for the said post they held and by virtue of the provision contained in the Goa, Daman and Diu Member of legislative Assembly (removal of disqualifications) Act-1982 (for short the 1982 Act) the disqualifications, in any, was removed especially by clause (9) of the schedule. The pleas set up by the appellants were rejected and the high court held that these appellants were holding the office of profit and they were not entitled to contest the election as they were disqualified and the election petitions were allowed and elections of the appellants were set aside.