The office of Profit

It’s been long time since I have wound my Wile E. Coyote.
Always troubled! Always suffered!

Basics to look into:

What is Office of profit dilemma?

Let’s dig back in the history of England.
The governing body of England (king or queen) use to assign some executive positions to the people of parliament inorder to maintain the governing dynamics and strengthen their legacy of ruling the England.

Additional powers in pocket is everyone’s desire, to claim more profit and gather influence around the space. Being directed by the ruler, the people of the parliament who were assigned such responsibilities were bound to have biased opinions for the king or queen and hence the whole system ran more or less under the dictatorship of the ruler.

Being under the executive directives the legislative are bound to follow the directions instead of behaving independently.

The Indian Scenario!

• Such titles are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or Representation of the People Act of 1951,
• It is critical for us to have a strict judgement about the activity being illegal. Once in 2006 it was claimed that the “OOP” is not only about claiming monetary benefits but also the intangible benefits that cannot be accounted under books.

specifically,

• If the post is appointed by Government.
• If the work is remunerated.
• If possessing the powers of Government.

Following any of these above criteria, it will result in disqualification of the authority possessing the powers as per Constitution Act 102 and 191.

Well, everything is pretty much sorted now, but what if I claim that executives are also the legislative people? so why ain’t those people are being held under the Act of 102 and 191?

Fair and Square! executives are exempted from this Act!

From Delhi Perspective!

Why are we seeing this happening in Delhi only and not in other places?
well, yeah! it’s all political?

No!

Parliamentary Secretary being under “OOP” are vulnerable under the Act 102 and 191. It is also important to note that every state government had passed separate law to exempt such authority from “OOP” explicitly. But in Delhi, under Delhi Member of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act 1997 the exemption of such Parliamentary Secretary were not mentioned explicitly and hence resulted in the case.

Moreover, on realization of the flaw in the Act, the Delhi Government later made a law from a retrospective effect to exempt such authorities from “OOP” but unfortunately it was not sanctioned by the Governor.

So, as the case is going to be judged at High Court, definitely it will be on the news for long.

Meanwhile, let’s see what happens and what all you all have to say about it!

Check out my legal space here: https://easylaw.quora.com