This article involves deliberate misinterpretation of ratios of Supreme Court decisions. Proof of pudding is in eating. Let the High Court and the Supreme Court interpret the law, then everything will become clear. The apologists for AAP’s misadventures like the author will have to shut up then.
It’s silly to say that the President should seek a reference from the SC. Our President has no such right or obligation. He/she has to act according to the recommendation of the Cabinet. Mr. Achary may be a legal authority, but he – and many others who appeal to the President to do this or that – forget that the Constitution intended the President to be a figurehead, not an energetic executive.
So, what should the MLAs do?
The decision of the EC if, of course, subject to adjudication. That’s what should be the subject of a legal process, which the disqualified MLAs must initiate (and already have). If the outcome of that process is that the EC is wrong, the disqualification recommendation and the acceptance of it by the President are automatically void as well.
The SC can also use the process to clarify what does and doesn’t qualify as an office of profit under the Constitution’s definition of the term.
From Accounting Point of View, an “Office of Profit” is that which involves “Monetary Gains” for the subject who is charged to have held an office of Profit while being an elected Member of Parliament or any State Legislature. Any facilities availed to perform duty do not form an “Office of Profit” as such facility/ies do not give him any personal benefits or gains in terms of Money.
A well-written article by a person with legal background and sufficient exposure to parliamentary activities and procedure. The legal infirmities disregarded by the E.C. in framing the case against AAP MLAs and overlooking of the discrepancies by President’s Office will obviously go in favour of AAP govt.
Worthy PRESIDENT need to have opinion from S. C. and Thanks for it!
This article involves deliberate misinterpretation of ratios of Supreme Court decisions. Proof of pudding is in eating. Let the High Court and the Supreme Court interpret the law, then everything will become clear. The apologists for AAP’s misadventures like the author will have to shut up then.
It’s silly to say that the President should seek a reference from the SC. Our President has no such right or obligation. He/she has to act according to the recommendation of the Cabinet. Mr. Achary may be a legal authority, but he – and many others who appeal to the President to do this or that – forget that the Constitution intended the President to be a figurehead, not an energetic executive.
So, what should the MLAs do?
The decision of the EC if, of course, subject to adjudication. That’s what should be the subject of a legal process, which the disqualified MLAs must initiate (and already have). If the outcome of that process is that the EC is wrong, the disqualification recommendation and the acceptance of it by the President are automatically void as well.
The SC can also use the process to clarify what does and doesn’t qualify as an office of profit under the Constitution’s definition of the term.
From Accounting Point of View, an “Office of Profit” is that which involves “Monetary Gains” for the subject who is charged to have held an office of Profit while being an elected Member of Parliament or any State Legislature. Any facilities availed to perform duty do not form an “Office of Profit” as such facility/ies do not give him any personal benefits or gains in terms of Money.
Vinod Rai is a Jyotishi he knows what is in others head and mind. But he doesn’t known his fate after BJP’s demise from centre
A well-written article by a person with legal background and sufficient exposure to parliamentary activities and procedure. The legal infirmities disregarded by the E.C. in framing the case against AAP MLAs and overlooking of the discrepancies by President’s Office will obviously go in favour of AAP govt.