EC move on 21 AAP MLAs finds support across party divide

“Instead of knocking on the doors of Election Commission and Supreme Court, the 21 MLAs of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) should take lesson from Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who resigned from Lok Sabha in 2006 and went back to people after allegations were raised on her for holding an office of profit, and go back to people after resigning from the Assembly,” reacted Delhi Congress President Ajay Maken after the Election Commission dismissed the petition of 21 MLAs, paving the way for their disqualification.

In its order, Election Commission observed, “The commission is, thus, of the considered opinion that the respondents did hold de-facto the office of parliamentary secretaries from 13 March 2015 to 08 September 2016 and the interpretation as sought to be put by them on the order dated 08 September 2016 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that they did not hold any office is not legally tenable. Hence, without prejudice to the merits of the case, the reference relating to the question of the alleged disqualification of the respondents under section 15 (4) of the GNCT of Delhi Act, 1991 for holding the said office survives and is maintainable in respect of all the respondents except respondent no.16 (Shri Jarnail Singh, MLA of Rajouri Garden) who has resigned as MLA on 17th January 2017 and even a by-election has been held in April 2017 to fill that vacancy in the Delhi Legislative Assembly”.

This paragraph of an order issued by Election Commission on Friday came as a heavy blow to the AAP, already facing several charges and internal dissent. This order means increased political activity in Delhi. The government may approach the Election Commission again and later the Supreme Court.

“Election Commission’s recent order should not be misinterpreted. Delhi High Court had declared very order of appointment of 21 parliamentary secretaries as null and void. Therefore, there is no question of hearing a petition for office which never existed as per Delhi High Court. However, Election Commission has ordered that it will still hear the petition. All remedies are available to challenge this order of Election Commission. We respect the orders of Hon’ble High Court as well as the Hon’ble Election commission,” came the first reaction from AAP.

Reacting to the last line of the Election Commission order - “The Commission will intimate the next date of hearing to all the concerned parties in the present proceeding in due course,” Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s press advisor Nagender Sharma tweeted, “Reading amusing conclusions on EC interim order on whether it continue(s) to hear parliamentary secretary petition. Hearing on merits is yet to begin.” He further tweeted: “Amazing how EC usage of term de-facto office being misinterpreted without even understanding basics of case merits so far !!”.

Reacting to the decision, BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri said, “The order shows autonomous bodies of India work independently. We know that by raising the questions on EVMs, the AAP tried to pressure Election commission but Election Commission does not work under any pressure and this decision has proved this.”

Sharpening his attack on AAP’s alleged double standards, Ajay Maken said, “The AAP came to power on the plank that they are against any VIP culture and are ordinary people. But these MLAs not only misused the government funds but, by using the benefits which are used by ministers, proved that they cannot live as ordinary MLAs, forget ordinary citizens.”

In March 2015, the Arvind Kejriwal government appointed 21 of the party's MLAs as parliamentary secretaries. In June 2015, the Delhi Assembly passed an amendment to the Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1997, which sought to make the position of parliamentary secretary in the Delhi Assembly exempt from the definition of Office of Profit, as the AAP enjoys an overwhelming majority in the house. In June 2016, President Pranab Mukherjee rejected the amendment. In September 2016, the Delhi High Court set aside the Delhi government’s order. Later the issue reached Election Commission.