Lawyer questions ‘logic’ of appointing 21 parliamentary secretaries

Appointment of 21 parliamentary secretaries by the AAP government has taken a new turn as advocate Prashant Patel questioned why the government had in a hurry introduced an amendment bill in the Delhi Assembly to replace the words “chief minister” with “minister” with retrospective effect to save these legislators from facing disqualification for using office of profit in violation of the rules. He said the bill, which was rejected by President Pranab Mukherjee, had been introduced without seeking prior mandatory legal and constitutional sanction of the Union government.

In response to the replies filed by the 21 parliamentary secretaries, Mr Patel told the Election Commission that these MLAs cannot afford to take a stand contrary to that of their government on any legislative proposal or measure. “Outside the House, they cannot resort to any dharna, rally or protest in favour of the electorate and against the government. That is why, in all democratic countries world over, legislators are not allowed to accept such offices from the government.” Mr Patel questioned the logic of appointing parliamentary secretaries “when the Delhi Assembly rules do not define or recognise that post equivalent to a minister and in the absence of such a definition in the rules of the House, no Speaker or presiding officer has permitted any parliamentary secretary in the past to speak, act or substitute in the House as a minister or to perform any function on behalf of a minister or the government.”

As per law, the government can appoint only one parliamentary secretary with the CM. Earlier, two legislators other than the parliamentary secretary, who could hold office of profit, were chairpersons of the Delhi Khadi and Village Industries Board and the Delhi Commission of Women. Later, the scope of the Act among other posts was extended to the office of the chairman and vice-chairman of the Trans-Yamuna Area Development Board, the Delhi Rural Development Board, District Development Committees, the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Welfare Board, the Fire Prevention Advisory Committee, Hospital Advisory Committee, governing body of a Delhi government-sponsored college, cooperative institution or organisation registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 and any statutory or non-statutory body set up by the city government.

In 2015, the AAP government had appointed the 21 parliamentary secretaries to the six council of ministers. In his order, then principal secretary Anindo Majumdar had said: “The parliamentary secretaries will not be eligible for any remuneration or any perks of any kind from the government. However, they may use government transport for official purposes only and office space in the ministers’ cabins would be provided to them to facilitate their work.” In 2006, the Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Samajwadi Party Rajya Sabha member Jaya Bachchan that “it was well settled that where the office carries with it certain emoluments, then it will be an office of profit, even if the holder of the office chooses not to receive/ draw such emoluments.”