Govt confronts Prez with arrogance on OoP: BJP

New Delhi, Jul 27: The Bharatiya Janata Party today described the re-introduction of the Office of Profit Bill in the Rajya Sabha as the ''arrogance'' of Parliamentary majority, which considers the President as the ''rival centre of power'' and seeks to protect the violators of the Constitution.

In his 50-minute spirited speech, former Law Minister and senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley said the President gave a sage advice by asking the government to reconsider the ''Constitutional misadventure''.

He advised the government to correct its mistakes and avail of the ''historic opportunity '' given by the President. But then he said, he was not sure whether the UPA Government, enjoying the ''fragile support'' from the Left would heed the sane advice because it has to protect certain individuals, many of whom were from the Left parties, against disqualifications.

What is more agonising for the BJP and other Opposition parties was that the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006 was being rushed through so that some members of the Left parties are saved from giving replies to the Election Commission on July 31, the noted lawyer and BJP leader said in his long speech, which did not attract any interruption from the treasury benches.

Reminding the Congress and its allies that there is a disconnect between what the government is doing and what public opinion is, Mr Jaitley said ''Do not forget that you may have a majority today in this House. But political majorities are never immortal. The people who witnessed you becoming a majority can again have the opportunity of witnessing you getting into minority.'' He said Parliament is merely a creation of the Constitution. It cannot violate the Constitution. Unlike in the British democracy where Parliamentary sovereignty is unlimited, the sovereignty of Indian Parliament is limited. It can legislate on subjects for which it has legislative competence.

''The Indian Parliament does not have the sovereignty by legislation to violate the Constitution,'' he said.

It is the duty of the President to uphold the Constitution. He can go to any extent to uphold it. That is the solemn oath he has taken. This job is independent of the executive advice and aid he receives from the Cabinet, Mr Jaitley said.

The President wants Parliament to reconsider the Bill because he thinks there should be a common criteria all over the country with regard to the exemptions. Secondly, he does question the retrospective exemptions and thirdly what is sought to be exempted is the holder of the office rather than the office itself.

While he knows that because of sheer numbers the Bill would be passed, he thinks it would be a new low in Indian Parliamentary democracy. Besides, even if it gets passed, it may not stand the judicial scrutiny, Mr Jaitley said.

Responding to the argument of the government as also the Left leaders that the Office of Profit has not been defined, Mr Jaitley asked what stops them from defining it in the Bill.

Participating in the debate, Abhishek Manu Singhvi (Congress) blamed Mr Jaitley for obstructing the smooth functioning of the House and said that this is pre-decided by those who oppose this Bill that this should not be passed in any case. He said that Mr Jaitley wanted the discussion on the Mumbai blasts to be resumed first and not the Office of Profit Bill.

Mr Singhvi said both OoP and Terror are liable to be discussed in this House and will be discussed.

He said that Mr Jaitley was painting a new picture of Parliament vs President and he has pulled the President in political arena.

''President can and should over ride Parliament,'' Mr Singhvi said.

He further said that President has the right to send back the Bill and we have to examine his objections. The President also can and should refer the matter to the Supreme Court and have discussion with Cabinet or experts before giving assent to a Bill. The House is ultimate in taking responsibility for the Bill.

''OoP Bill again is nothing but an article of power,'' he added Defending the President's action in sending the Bill back for reconsideration in the House, Mr Singhvi demanded that the Bill be passed.

Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh said that nobody tried to find out the root cause for this situation and who was the victim.

He said Jaya Bachchan and Amar Singh were the victims. ''Jaya Bachchan has come back to the House and the judgment is reserved in my case,'' he said.

Mr Singh said an elected member of the AICC had complained about Jaya Bachchan holding an OoP, but they should know that ''those whose own house is made of glass, never throw stone on an other's house.'' ''In this case, we both have the houses of glass and should consider before doing any thing which could harm both,'' he noted.

Criticising both the Congress and the BJP for their double speak on the issue of Office of Profit, the SP general secretary noted that the former felt it was correct to disqualify his party's MP Jaya Bachchan, but seeking to protect their own friends when they ran afoul of the law. ''Similarly, the BJP is opposing at in the centre while supporting it in Jharkhand,'' he said.

Opposing extremism in politics -- be it in the form of raids, phone tapping or Office of Profit -- he said he was against such methods as political ammunition since it was ''wrong, crude and immoral.'' Mr Singh said that though he himself would benefit from the passage of the bill and was supporting it, he was ''ashamed'' of taking its advantage. He said that the rules for exempting any post from being deemed an Office of Profit should be clearly defined.

Mr Sitaram Yechury (CPI-M) said that the Presidential reference was for the bill to be made unambiguous and that all lacunae need to be corrected. He demanded setting up of a Parliamentary Committee to draw an unambiguous list of posts in public, private and corporate sectors which should be exempted from Office of Profit to meet the President's respect.

He criticised the BJP for talking about morality on the issue while supporting the matter in Jharkhand. Stating that he had high respect for the office of the President, he sought to know from the opposition party why it did not act when the then President K R Narayanan asked it to stop the ''genocide in Gujarat.'' Asserting that the MPs of the Left parties were not holding offices of profit but ''Office of Service,'' he tried to defend their continuation on these posts by saying that they were keeping a check on the executive. ''It is unreasonable and incorrect to refer to them as profiteers or violators of the Constitution,'' he said.

Opposing and disapproving the ''anti-public bill'', Mr N Jyothi (AIADMK) said that bringing it in the same form showed the ''arrogance of the legislature and a challenge to the authority President of the Country.'' The government has refused to take the advice of the President, he said,noting that by refusing to have a ''re-look'' at the bill having many flaws as pointed out by the President, the government is not recognising that it would not pass the test of the law, court and public perception.

According to Mr Jyothi, the Congress has brought the bill to appease and favour its Left party allies as it continued to be in the power due to their support. Charging that the Congress has been traditionally doing such things, as in 1975 it brought many Constitutioinal amendments when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi lost an election petition.

''The party has such a legacy,'' he said, cautioning pointed out that the public is watching and they would not buy the argument given in the bill that the government wanted to avoid wasteful expenditure in the re-election of the affected MPs.

Mr P C Alexander (Independent) said that the bill would destroy democracy, based on the independence of legislature, executive and judiciary and their non-interference in each other's sphere. He said that the number of offices under the Office of Profit should be pruned and be limited to the barest minimum. A law having uniform applicability in the centre and state should be formulated and loopholes should be plugged, he added.

Pointing out that MPs and MLAs try to grab the offices for power and influence, he said this was eroding the people's respect for them. These offices should be left for people having expertise in the field and MPs/MLAs should concentrate full time on their own work.

Nominated member Bimal Jalan said that though there was a provision for separation of power in democracy, the government in power decides what it wants to do. The MPs, though differing on the issues like Office of Profit, have no option but to vote according to their party's stand as under the Anti-Defection Law, they could be disqualified. ''They have no liberty to take an independent view of issues like this which have no bearing on the security of the country,'' he said, adding that this indicated the ''diminishing role of Parliament.'' Disappointed with the government for not taking the ''Presidential message'' seriously, he said that there should be a clear-cut demarcation of offices of profit and non-profit. Though the President returned the bill seven weeks ago, the government did not consider the issues pointed out by Dr Kalam, he said.

Mr Ram Jethmalani (Nominated) said that the President holds the moral and spiritual power and the conscience of the nation and by not heeding is advice, the government has challenged the constitutional authority of the post. Lauding the Congress President for showing respect to the Constitution by resigning and getting re-elected, he said others have not shown any moral values on the issue.

He said that arbitrary nature and discrimination under the bill for people exempted was a major issue which the President wanted Parliament to look into. He also questioned implementing it from retrospective effect and said that the bill would not be able to hold constitutional scrutiny in the Supreme Court.

UNI

Related Stories