With the fear of losing their membership of the Delhi legislative Assembly, all the 21 Parliamentary Secretaries, appointed by the AAP Government, have reportedly told the Election Commission of India (ECI) that they were not holding any ‘office of profit’ in the national Capital.
The Parliamentary Secretaries told the ECI that they were neither using any office nor any vehicle of the Delhi Government. On the appointment of 21 Parliam-entary Secretaries, lieutenant-Governor Najeeb Jung had earlier told a news channel that CM Arvind Kejriwal had taken a risk and it was for all to see. He had said, “By definition when we look at the statues of Delhi, then the office of Parliamentary Secretary is defined as an office of profit. Schedule 7 says Delhi can have only one Parliamentary Secretary, attached to the office of the Chief Minister… If the Centre does not approve the Bill sent by the Delhi Government to regularise the posts, the MlAs’ may be disqualified.”
In their respective written replies, backed by a letter from the AAP Government’s General Administration Department, all the 21 Parliamentary Secretaries categorically denied using any Government office or vehicle to discharge their duties. It was the GAD’s then Principal Secretary Anindo Majumdar who had, through his order dated March 13, 2015, categorically said the Parliamentary Secretaries would not be eligible for any remuneration or any perk of any kind from the Government. But the same order said, “However, they may use the Government transport for official purposes only and office space in the Ministers office would be provided to them to facilitate their work.”
The ECI had directed the 21 AAP legislators, who were appointed as Parliamentary Secretaries almost a year ago, to file their replies by May 10. The Commission had earlier issued show-cause notice to 21 Parliamentary Secretaries seeking their response on why they should not be disqualified, on the basis of a petition filed by Delhi-based advocate Prashant Patel. It had asked to file reply by April 11. The petition alleged that the said MlAs occupied ‘offices of profit’ in violation of the Constitution of India.