New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to restrain the Election Commission from giving its opinion to the President on petitions seeking disqualification of about 40 MPs on the ground that they were holding offices of profit.

The court on August 23 issued notice to the Centre on a writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Dinesh Trivedi challenging the constitutional validity of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006 exempting 55 offices from the purview of disqualification.

On Thursday a Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia issued notice to the Centre and the Commission on another writ petition filed by the Consumer Education and Research Society challenging the Act and seeking an interim direction to restrain the Commission from proceeding further on the disqualification petitions.

Senior counsel Soli Sorabjee made a mention on the urgency of the petition and said the Commission was disposing of the petitions based on the new Act.

Petitions to be tagged

When the Bench indicated that it would not grant any stay, Mr. Sorabjee suggested that it pass an order that the disposal of the petitions by the Commission would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The Bench said, "that is obvious" but did not pass any interim order. It issued notice to the Centre and the Commission seeking their response in eight weeks and directed that this petition be tagged with the one filed by Mr. Trivedi.

The petitioner said the Act, notified on August 18, was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it had been passed with retrospective effect solely to protect about 40 MPs, facing disqualification proceedings. "The exemption under Article 102 (1) (a) can be valid only if it is in existence at the time the member becomes the holder of an office of profit. The purported retrospective operation clearly injects arbitrariness into the Act and renders it patently unconstitutional. Ex post facto retrospective validation purported to be granted under the Act cannot obliterate an existingincurred invalidity."

"Clear violation"

The petitioner said the passing of the Act when complaints of disqualification were pending before the Commission was clearly violative of Article 103 (decision on questions of disqualification of members). Further, it was violative of the rule of law, a basic feature of the Constitution, the petitioner said and sought a declaration that the Act was unconstitutional, and an interim stay of its operation.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail