Read a [fuller analysis of the issues in The Wire](<
The Wire reported:
Understanding the Ratio of Malice to Legality in the AAP MLAs Disqualification Case
Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal. Credit: PTI/Files
Two identical constitutional provisions deal with the disqualification of membership – Article 102 (Union), Article 191 (state). Both say that if a member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of parliament (MP) holds an office of profit under the government of India or government of any state, he/she stands disqualified as a member of the legislature concerned.
However, the general rule of disqualification is subject to an exception provided for in both Articles. The disqualification is not applicable to those offices “declared by Parliament [or state legislature] by law not to disqualify its holder”. This proviso was meant to carve out an exception to the rule of disqualification, as embodied in the former part of the same clause.
>).
Scroll.in reported:
Office of profit case: 20 AAP MLAs move Delhi High Court to quash disqualification, EC decision
The Aam Aadmi Party on Tuesday moved the Delhi High Court, challenging President Ram Nath Kovind’s decision to disqualify 20 of its MLAs on the recommendation of the Election Commission. The bench will hear the petition on Wednesday.
On Monday, the 20 disqualified legislators withdrew their plea in the Delhi High Court seeking stay on the Election Commission’s recommendation. This was because their petition was deemed “infructuous” as Kovind had already issued a notification to disqualify them.
AAP had alleged that the Election Commission had not given them a fair hearing before sending its recommendation to the president.
Comments
No comments yet.