OFFICE OF PROFIT Recent Political Controversy In Indian Political System. B.

Ramalingam Research scholar, Department of Public Administration, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India500007 . Introduction:
A nation wide debate is going on over the controversy of disqualification of MPs and MLAs on the Ground of holding offices of profit in Indian Political system. It began with the disqualification of Samajwadi Party MP Jaya Bhachan from Rajya Sabha on March 17, 2006 with retrospective effect from July 14, 2004. After this event, leaders of different political parties performed much hue and cry. Finally Sonia Gandhi resigned from the Lok Sabha pretending the issue of morality. Very soon the controversy took a constitutional crisis and different state governments rushed to save their pillars of powers.

BACHCHAN ISSUE : Jaya Bachchan was elected for the Rajya Sabha in June 2004. After one month she was appointed as the Chairperson of Utter Pradesh Film Development Corporation, which was an office of profit under the State government. She was given perks and other benefits as part of her job in U.P. In this way, she

was holding an office of profit not withstanding her selection as the member of the Council of state very interestingly, a Congress worker from Utter Pradesh filed a complaint against Ms. Bachchan in the Election Commission. The Commission found her guilty of holding an office of profit. The President, after the Recommendation of the EC disqualified her under the Article 102 of the Constitution of India. SONIA ISSUE : Congress President Sonia Gandhi was a member of Lok Sabha. She was appointed as the Chairperson of National Advisory Council by the UPA government. She also held several posts under the government. Complaints were registered against her, and she chose the safe route of resignation. So that she could continue her impression of being the statue of sacrifice and morality.

The list of holders of office of profit is too long. Complaints against more than 40 MPs are registered in the Election Commission. Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee himself comes within the purview of disqualification. Hundreds of member of different state legislature hold offices of profit, some how or the other.

What does it show ? (a) Our policy makers. Statesman, politicians, leaders and so-called stalwarts want to grab more and more power in one hand. (b) The power loving people do not want to let the door open for others. (c) They need money by any means, so that they could hide their black money. (d) In an era of corporate culture of democracy, only money begets powers. (e) In order to sustain in power, the thirst of greedy leaders can be satisfied only by giving them of faces of profit. (f) Our political partys, power-loving representatives and peoples leaders have lost morality, principle and dignity. They need power, they need money : but they do not need welfare of the people. CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS : Disqualification of MPs : There are separate provisions of disqualification for

the member of parliament and the member of state legislature. Article 84 prescribes qualifications of the members of parliament. It lays down that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in parliament unless he (a) is a Citizen of India and makes an subscribes before some persons authorized in that behalf by the Election Commission on oath of affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the third schedule. (b) is of at least 30 years of age for the Rajya Sabha and of 25 years of age for the Lok Sabha (C) and possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by any low made by the parliament.

Our Constitution clearly mentions that the parliament has the power to make a low in respect to the issue of qualification of the member. Article 102 lays down disqualification of membership in case. (a) he holds any office of India or of any state, other than an office declared by a low of parliament not to disqualify its holders. (b) he is an undischarged in solvent. (c) he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court. (d) he is not a citizen of India or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign state or is under any acknowledgement or allegiance or adherence to a foreign state, and (e) If is so disqualified by or under any law of parliament, it applies to the case of defection as prescribed in Tenth Schedule.

Article No.103 lays down that any dispute about the disqualification of member of parliament shall be referred to the President who will take a decision on the advice of the Election Commission and his decision shall be final. The Election Commission has a great role as the President decides the matter after obtaining its opinion and is accordance with that option and in case of disqualification on grounds of defection, the matter will decided by the Speaker or Chairman of Rajya Sabha as the case may be.

Disqualification of MLAs and MLCs : The disqualifications for membership in State Legislature are spelt in Article 191 which lays down.

1. A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a state (a) if he holds any office of profit under the government of India or the government of any state specified in first schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify sits holders. (b) If he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court. (c) If he is an undischarged in solvent. (d) If he is not a citizen of India, or voluntarily has acquired the citizenship of a foreign state, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state. (e) If he is so disqualified by or under any low made by the parliament. 2. A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a state if he is so disqualified under the anti-defection law contained in Tenth scheduled.

Finally we may refer to Article 192 which says that if there is any dispute about the qualification of a member of the State Legislature, the matter shall be settled by the Governor whose decision shall be final and he shall do so after taking the opinion of the Election Commissioner.

LEGAL ISSUE AND OPTIONS : To constitute an office of profit under Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution, Three conditions are to be satisfied. There should be an office to which an appointment is made. It should be an office of profit. The office should be one under the government. However, the parliament (prevention of Disqualification) act 1959 specifies certain offices, which will not come within the purview of the disqualification and several offices have been added after the enactment of the law. The office of the Minister is excluded from the office of profit. The law has been amended time and again for minor posts and for lesser mortals. In 1977, when a non-Congress party came to power for the leader of the opposition in each House was provided a Special Salary and allowances.

Since that made it an office of profit. The Morarji Desai government simultaneously amended the 1959 Act to put the leader of the opposition in the exempted list. In 1992 the National Commission for Schedule Casts and Scheduled Tribes (as it was then called) and National Commission for women came into existence while the National Commission for Minorities was conferred statutory study. Within a year, the Narasimha Rao government amended the act to save heads of those three commissions from being affected by the office of profit rule. In 1999, leaders and chief whips of all recognized parties and groups in parliament were provided special facilities. The Vajpayee government simultaneously amended the 1959 act to protect them from disqualification. On September 30, 1982, the President disqualified a member of the Rajya Sabha M.R. Mohan Rangam as he was holding the post of Special representatives of the government of Tamil Nadu in Delhi. It was taken as an office of profit.

The Supreme Court in the Shibu Soren case has made it clear that even if the holder of the office does not drawn salary, he or she will be deemed to hold an office of profit if the office carries same remuneration or pecuniary benefits.

And, now the cabinet committee on parliamentary affairs decided to convene a session of parliament from May 10 to 23 to discuss the office of profit for taking a final decision.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Prospects on Indian Government and Politics by K.R. Acharya. 2. Parliamentary Democracy and Legislators by R.K. Bharadwaj. 3. Constitutional System of the Indian Republic by K.R. Bomswalla. 4. Political in India by Rajani Kothari. 5. Indian Todays 6. Hindu Editorials

7. Indian Government and Politics by A.S. Narang.

Websites : www.parliamentofindia.nic.in www.pmindia.nic.in www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in

Retrieved from "http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/office-of-profita-political-controversy-in-india-292234.html"

(ArticlesBase SC #292234) Ramalingam Ramalingam - About the Author: Office of Profit a Political Controversy in India

office of profit means political representatives should not work with profit motivation, they are public representatives, sould act volunteerly, in a country like India they must serve the people without expecting any thing.but public representatives getting money and status, so office of profit bacame controversy. By: Ramalingaml News and Society> Politicsl Dec 28, 2007 lViews: 963

Office of profit From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An office of profit is a term used in a number of national constitutions to refer to executive appointments. A number of countries forbid members of the legislature from accepting an office of profit under the executive as a means to secure the independence of the legislature and preserve the separation of powers.

* 1 Origin * 2 Application in Britain * 3 Past Controversy * 4 References

Origin

The English Act of Settlement 1701 and Act of Union 1707 are an early example of this principle. The Act of Settlement provided that

no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons;

The framers of the US Constitution adopted a similar position. The US Constitution provides that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." Similarly, it provides that individuals holding an office of profit or trust under the United States are forbidden, without the consent of the Congress, from receiving any emoluments from the government of a foreign state, and that a person who holds an office of trust or profit under the United States cannot be an elector in presidential elections.

The term is used in Article 102 (1)(A) of the Indian Constitution which bars a member of the Indian Parliament from holding an office that would give its occupant the opportunity to gain a financial advantage or benefit. The actual amount of profit gained during the violation has no bearing on its classification. The political concept behind the law most likely originated in England, and was adopted into the Indian Constitution to prevent a conflict of interest. [edit] Application in Britain

In Britain, the principle has been eroded. As a parliamentary system, the

executive sits in the legislature, and from the nineteenth century ministries were invariably led by members of the House of Commons. Until 1919, members of parliament who were appointed to ministerial office lost their right to sit in the Commons and had to seek re-election. The rule survives in the House of Commons Disqualification Act which specifies a number of state positions that make an individual ineligible to serve as a member of parliament. The last vestige of the rule can be seen through the process of resignation from the House of Commons. By tradition, resignation from the House of Commons is impossible. An MP who wishes to resign has first to accept an office of profit under the Crown, thus vacating his seat. Members who wish to retire ask to be appointed to the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majestys Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, or steward of the Manor of Northstead. While these ancient posts have no responsibilities attached to them, they fulfill the requirements of the law and disqualify Members from sitting, enabling their retirement. [edit] Past Controversy

In 2006, Indian National Congress President and MP, Sonia Gandhi, resigned several posts under pressure from political opposition who asserted that the posts were 'offices of profit' and thus unlawful.

Jaya Bachchan was disqualified from the Rajya Sabha, while she was also chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council, therefore it was deemed an office of profit.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_profit"

http://ads.rediff.com/5c/innewsA.rediff.com/newsarticle.htm/298579847/TopRight/default/empty.gif/3074522b4a30786639717341416c34 55 rediff.com

http://www.rediff.com/news

http://www.redi

ff.com/news News Business Movies Sports Get Ahead Hi Guest Sign In | Create a Rediffmail account
rediff

http://www.rediff.com/news

rediff.com

w eb

web

Search

http://ads.rediff.com/5c/innewsA.rediff.com/news-article.htm/L35/445456370/LB02/OasDefault/Worldvision_US_CPC_Aug10_LB/728x90_set3.gif/30 74522b4a30786639717341416c3455

Lok Sabha passes Office of Profit Bill

Last updated on: May 16, 2006 19:17 IST A Bill providing exemption to 46 posts, including the National Advisory Council chairmanship, from the purview of the office of profit was passed by the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. NDA thumbs down for Office of Profit Bill The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006 seeks to bring changes in the 1959 Act by exempting more posts from the purview of the office of profit.

The bill was passed by voice vote amid opposition by the National Democratic Alliance with some of its members staging a walkout. Replying to the debate, Law Minister H R Bhardwaj said the proposed legislation will put in place a system whereby definition of office of profit will be clear. Emphasising that everyone's suggestions have been taken care of, he said the government has no ill will against anybody but lashed out at the opposition for attacking Sonia Gandhi [ Images ]. "We have respect for everyone, every political leader. But still our leader is attacked," the minister said. Amid thumping of desks by treasury benches, he said the Congress president had shown ethical and moral values and principles, which were lacking in others. Earlier in the day, the Bharatiya Janata Party [ Images ] had trooped out of the House after Leader of the Opposition L K Advani [ Images ] accused the government of 'bulldozing' the measure. Objecting to the inclusion of the NAC post in the exemption list, Advani said, "Sonia as NAC chief had become a 'super prime minister. Everyone agreed that the office of the prime minister had been devalued and diminished." He contended that if the NAC post was to be exempted, then the government should have come out with a Constitutional amendment instead of a simple Bill as the post was virtually a Constitutional office. Contesting this, Law Minister H R Bhardwaj said NAC chairmanship was not a Constitutional office. "It is not even a statutory office," he said, adding that Advani lacked knowledge of Parliamentary law. The Leader of the House and Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee [ Images ] refuted Advani's charge that he was not consulted on the measure. Sonia was not present in the House when the Opposition raised procedural issues. Speaker Somnath Chatterjee [ Images ], who has been charged with holding the office of profit, did not preside over the proceedings when the issue was taken up on grounds of propriety. The law minister said the government decided to adopt the measure in the eventuality of 40 parliamentarians losing membership for holding office of profit. The bill seeks to exempt more posts from the purview of the office of profit. These include Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority headed by the Speaker, UP Development Council led by Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh [ Images ], and the now defunct All India [ Images ] Council of Sports earlier headed by BJP deputy leader V K Malhotra with retrospective effect. Besides 40 parliamentarians (many of them from Left parties), 200 legislators are facing disqualification petitions on the office of profit issue. The list includes the posts of Indira Gandhi [ Images ] National Centre of Arts, the president of Indian Council for Cultural

Relations and chairperson of the Delhi [ Images ] Rural Development Board. Kapila Vatsayan, Karan Singh and Sajjan Kumar, who headed these bodies, have already tendered their resignations from the posts.

Write the author Government Laws Elections Spread the word Printer friendly version

OPINION: GOVERNMENT No need to amend the 'Office of profit' law The UPA Government is attempting to achieve consensus and amend the Office of Profit law to allow select legislators to hold additional public offices. This is merely the climax of a larger trend, says Madabhushi Sridhar, of an already thin separation of power between executive and legislature, and of earlier efforts to dilute the Constitution. /support/home.php 21 April 2006 - Member of Parliament (MP) Jaya Bachchan's disqualification, the proposed ordinance to save some MPs, the opposition's hue and cry that the ordinance was to save Sonia Gandhi -- President of Congress Party and leader of United Progressive Alliance comprising of non-rightist parties at the Centre, and her strategic resignation to disarm the opposition and neutralise the sting in their attack, all led to serious controversy over a number of government offices, their profits, and the control of the government over legislators in these offices. Jaya Bachchan was disqualified because she was also chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Corporation, a statutory body. The right to appoint and remove the holder of a government office in

many cases becomes an important and decisive test for the disqualification of a legislator holding such an office.

Govt. proposes, Parliament.. Campaign for electoral reforms

As the dust of politics settles, it is time now to look at the concerted effort amongst political parties to amend the law to facilitate double offices of profit. The UPA Government is considering whether to amend the definition of office of profit under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, or bring in a fresh Bill. Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution were originally aimed at securing total independence to legislative members and that is why the holding of an 'office of profit under government' is prescribed as an operative disqualification. To deal with some emergency and complex situations, the articles provided for declaration of some posts as not office-of-profit under government by law. Section 3 of Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, declared some offices as not to disqualify their holders for membership of either House of Parliament. For instance: Offices held by Ministers, Chief Whip, Deputy Whip, chairpersons or members of temporary advisory committees, specified non-statutory bodies, etc. More positions were declared exempt by other legislations. State laws also have similar provisions. The worry now -- and this is a legitimate one -- is that all political parties might agree to further dilute the principle of office of profit as a disqualification and permit a expanded list of exemptions to be added to Parliament Members (Removal of Disqualification) Act 1959. This is totally against the spirit of democratic constitutionalism, which thrives on strict separation of legislature and executive. The government is responsible and accountable to the legislature.

Farzana Cooper In India, the line of separation is already very thin between executive and legislature. The executive emerges out of and confines to the legislature. The Council of Ministers decide legislative policy and run the House according to their needs, under the 'able' guidance of a 'speaker' who is part and parcel of the ruling political power base. All this, inspite of an Opposition's 'stock' opposition to almost every thing proposed by the central government. And though, for namesake, the power to move any bill is vested in each member as 'private member legislation', in practice, this happens very rarely. Many important legislations are not discussed and it would be difficult to find the 'quorum' needed for accepting the bill. Disqualification based on office of profit is a democratic concept which has universal relevance in almost all democratic countries governed by a constitution. For instance, Article 35 of the U.S. Constitution mentions the phrase and defines it thus: "An office to which fees, a salary or other compensation is attached, is ordinarily an office of profit." Every office of profit does not invite disqualification for a member of legislative house either at the Centre or States. It should be an office, of profit, and be 'under government'. On the matter of fees, India's Parliamentary Members (Office of Profit) Amendment Act, 1959 was brought in to amend the Legislative Assembly Act 1867 and the Officials in Parliament Act 1896. "A member is not to be taken to be entitled to a fee or reward if the member irrevocably waives for all legal purposes the entitlement to the fee or reward," it says. It is clarified that 'fee or other reward' does not include "reasonable expenses actually incurred by or for the member for any one or more of the following -accommodation; meals; domestic air travel; taxi fares or public transport charges; and motor vehicle hire." The courts have already clarified The three aspects -- 'office', 'of profit, and 'under government' -- came up for decision before apex court in case of Shibu Soren, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha(S) leader (Shibu Soren v Dayanand Sahay AIR 2001 SC 2583). The Supreme Court set aside the election of Shibu Soren, to Rajya Sabha in June 1998, on the ground that he was holding "an office of profit" under the State Government as chairman of the Interim Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council (JAAC). The council was setup under the JAAC Act, 1994 at the time of his filing of his "nomination papers" and Soren was thus disqualified to contest election to Rajya Sabha. The expression 'under government' was also explained: "with regard to the "office of profit", what needed to be found was, if the amount received by the person concerned from the office he/she holds provides some pecuniary gain, other than the compensation to defray him/her out of pocket expenses."

The apex court held that Soren was was holding office "at the pleasure of the State Government". The court noted that the government had the right to remove or dismiss the holder of that office, besides controlling the manner of functioning of the Interim Council and providing funds for the Interim Council, out of which an honorarium of Rs.1750 per month, besides daily allowance, rent-free accommodation and a chauffeur driven car at the state expense, was paid to the appellant. The CJI further observed that all this "was a benefit capable of bringing about a conflict between the duty and interest of the appellant as a Member of Parliament - the precise vice to which Article 102 (1)(a) is attracted". The right to appoint and remove the holder of office in many cases becomes an important and decisive test. The apex court, in dismissing Soren's appeal against an earlier High Court verdict, said that "both Articles 102(1)(a) and Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution were incorporated with a view to eliminate or in any event reduce the risk of conflict between duty and interest amongst Members of the Legislature so as to ensure that the concerned legislator does not come under an obligation of the Executive, on account of receiving pecuniary gain or profit from it, which may render him amenable to influence of the Executive, while discharging his obligations as a legislator." Election Commission needs to do more The Election Commission of India, after successfully recommending that the President to disqualify Samajwadi MP Jaya Bachchan, is now flooded with several complaints against sitting legislators for holding 'office of profit'. It has taken notice of petitions received against 10 CPI(M) MPs, including the Speaker, and others and in most of the cases it has sought more information from the petitions because "details were lacking". It is reported that the Election Commission has asked the petitioners including Mukul Roy of the Trinamool Congress to give details like the date of appointment of the MPs to the offices said to be held by them, along with documentary evidence to substantiate their contention that they were offices of profit. Under current law, if a contesting candidate is already holding an office of profit under the control of the government, it is a disqualifying factor. If this factor is not noticed and the office holder wins the election, it is for the losing candidate to challenge the election before the High Court within one year. Before elections, it is the duty of the Election Commission and its officers to look into the nominations and study whether they hold any post which would disqualify them for contesting elections. Already, a 'regular' government employee cannot contest elections. The resignation, acceptance and due relieving orders are insisted upon as basic requirements to contest. Post-election, if a legislator is appointed to an office of profit under government control, the complaint has to be given to the Election Commission which has jurisdiction to enquire and recommend steps to the President or Governor, who are bound by its recommendation. The Election Commission must look in general into the office of profit itself as 'disqualification' during the nomination stage itself. Being a constitutionally prescribed

disqualification that strikes at the root of validity of membership, election officials need to check whether a particular contestant holds any such office under government. It is also the duty of citizens in general and rivals in particular to bring such facts to the notice of returning officers. The parties and their spiritless agenda Governments, especially coalitions, are seen to be doing everything to retain the legislators in their flock. Offering plum positions is one such method to silence their potential dissidence.

Govt. proposes, Parliament.. Campaign for electoral reforms

While the courts have more or less made clear as to how to apply the test of disqualification to legislators, parties themselves have headed in a different direction. Take our cabinet ministers, for instance. Though members of the House, they need to lead the house in securing consent to their measures, plans, programmes and budget allocations as functionaries in the executive too. They will defend every figure and provision made by the government. The MPs, though belong to ruling party, are expected to discuss the defects of the policy or the bills effectively and thus contribute to unbiased legislation development. But if a legislator is given an office of profit by the government, he would never talk against the pre-fixed policies and never bother to know the difficulties flowing from it to the people. In sum, if the legislators hold office of profit under the government, they have to toe the line of government and cannot act independently. There's more. Any government, especially a coalition, is seen to be doing everything to retain legislators in their flock. Offering plum positions is one such method to silence their potential dissidence. Chairpersons of Public Sector Corporations and Statutory

Bodies are not qualified to continue as members of legislative houses (e.g. Jaya Bachchan), and yet, governments have ignored these provisions. The legal counsels of Sonia Gandhi say that her position as Chairperson of National Advisory Council (NAC) could be an office and office of profit, but definitely not "under the government" and hence she can not be disqualified. But the NAC position itself is of cabinet rank, which has several financial benefits and allowances from the government. It is true that the present government itself is under the influence of Sonia Gandhi, and hence it may be arguable that Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson of NAC is not under the influence of 'government'. Even if this were the case, it would be because of her unique position as the leader of the Congress Party. However, any other person with the same rank would be definitely under the influential power of the government, which is objectionable under Article 102. Worse, if the law is amended and it is declared that positions such as NAC chairperson are not offices of profit, the spirit to make legislators independent, uninfluenced and unbiased, will be lost. Those who demanded disqualification of MPs for holding 'double' positions are eager to 'define' an 'office of profit' and 'declare' some offices of profit as not so. Over the years, each party has decorated their legislators with hundreds of positions in government when they were in power. The Congress, having run the country for several decades, naturally stands on the top in appending offices of profit to its own party legislators to keep the flock together or to nip dissidence in budding stage. In the states, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand State Assemblies have passed amending legislations to exempt hundreds of posts from being considered as 'offices of profit" to avoid disqualification of legislative members. In Jharkhand, the bill saved its legislators and helped the coalition government, which is running with wafer thin majority, to survive. The Uttar Pradesh bill, though passed, could not come to the rescue of Jaya Bachchan, but would certainly help other leaders who are facing the threat of disqualification. The U.P. legislation exempted 79 positions. .tabber{display:none;} continue reading article ...

/ support/co ntribute.ht m?rdir=ai

Have you made your contribution? Dear Reader, if you have been a regular at India Together, then you already know that informative reporting on India Together is kept viable by a partnership between you and us. If you haven't yet made an annual contribution, now is the time to change that. Support us at one of the following levels: - Rs.1000 (recommended) - Rs.5000 (Friends of India Together)

- Rs.500 (basic) Contribute now | Why your support matters p.s.: Your support is voluntary. Neverthele ss, we rely on it.

Culmination of trends The attempts of UPA Government at the center to achieve consensus and amend the law to facilitate some MPs to hold additional offices of profit, indicates the climax of the trend of the governments to dilute the spirit of the Constitution. If the Parliament passes a law carefully protecting all prominent members, every state will follow the suit and there will be spate of legislations in states totally circumventing the Articles 102 and 191. This will then be tantamount to eliminating the rule of double positions. Removal of every disqualification is the basis of concentration of power. It appears that the purity and independence of legislative membership is the target of every political party so that their people enjoy more than one position without threat of 'disqualification'. All the political parties are generally in the same situation as the Congress and Samajvadi Party. Hence there is likely to be unprecedented unity and consensus among all the parties to protect their political interests of present and future. The political parties, which pounced upon Jaya Bachchan and Sonia Gandhi, have no moral status to reach an agreement to dilute this constitutional ideal. The present controversy is just one facet of political corruption. On the matter of disclosure of candidate backgrounds to voters, all parties joined together to nullify the directions to Election Commission to insist on self declarations of criminal track record, financial and educational status. This was an example how all the vested political interests work together, cutting across political differences, to kill constitutionalism. It is happening again now as all 'left and right' parties are attempting remove any disqualification on office of profit grounds. Citizens who argue for reforms and corruption-free-political-offices need to develop a comprehensive vision. While some talk about curtailing horse-trading use to hammer out a coalition from a hung house, others discuss the cleansing of legislatures by weeding out criminals. On the one hand, sting operations put a total full stop to the political career of bribe-taking MPs, and on the other, cabinet positions and corporation chairmen posts become the most offered allurements to switch the sides, in spite of a stricter antidefection law.

The Parliament Members (Removal of Disqualification) 1959 needs no amendment. The expression 'office of profit' needs no definition as the judiciary has already explained the criteria where an office has to be termed as an office of profit under government. If at all it is amended, the expression should be given the meaning which is deliberated and concluded by the judgments. The list, which now exists under the 1959 law should not be expanded. Madabhushi 21 Apr 2006 Sridhar

#centralNotice.collapsed .central-notice-banner { display: none; } .central-notice-banner { position: relative; margin-bottom: 1em !important; border: 2px solid #6cc8f3; background-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/centralnotice/images/bughunting.png'); backgroundrepeat: no-repeat; background-position: left center; } .toggle-box { float: right; margintop: .75em; margin-right: .75em; font-size: 0.8em; } .vector-bughunt-banner-message { text-align: center; } .vector-bughunt-banner-message a, .vector-bughunt-bannermessage-date { display: inline-block; height: 2em; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; } .vector-bughunt-banner-message a.vector-bughunt-banner-message-left { color: #333333; } .vector-bughunt-banner-message a.vector-bughunt-banner-message-right { color: #0645AD; } .vector-bughunt-banner-message a.vector-banner-messageright:hover { text-decoration: underline; } .vector-bughunt-banner-message-date { color: #a31205; } Hide Wikipedia is getting a new look. Help us find bugs and complete user interface translations.

Resignation from the British House of Commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search / This article needs additional citations for verification. wiki/Fi Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may le:Que be challenged and removed. (April 2010) stion_b ook-

new.sv g /wiki/F ile:Que stion_b ooknew.sv g Members of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom are technically forbidden to resign. To circumvent this prohibition, a legal fiction is used. Appointment to an "office of profit under the Crown" disqualifies an individual from sitting as a Member of Parliament (MP). MPs are commonly appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to one of the two following offices to allow MPs to effectively resign their seats: Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham and Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead A number of offices have been used for this purpose historically, but only the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead are used today. The offices are only nominally paid. Generally they are held until they are again used to effect the resignation of an MP. The Chiltern Hundreds is usually used alternately with the Manor of Northstead, which makes it possible for two members to resign at exactly the same time. When more than two MPs resign at a time, as for example happened when 15 Ulster Unionist MPs resigned in protest at the Anglo-Irish Agreement on 17 December 1985, the resignations are in theory not simultaneous but instead spread throughout the day, with each member holding one of the offices for a short time. The holder may subsequently be re-elected to Parliament.

Contents
[hide] 1 History 2 See also 3 References 4 External links

[edit] History
In 1623 a rule was declared that said that Members of Parliament were given a trust to represent their constituencies, and therefore were not at liberty to resign them. In those days, Parliament was a far weaker institution. Members of Parliament were required to trek over a comparably primitive road system to Westminster, a real problem for MPs representing more distant constituencies. While at Westminster (and while in transit to and from) an MP could not effectively tend to personal business back home, yet for their services MPs received only nominal pay. Therefore service in Parliament was sometimes considered a resented duty rather than a position of power and honour. However, by a provision in the Act of Settlement 1701 (repealed in 1705 and re-enacted in modified form by the Place Act 1707), an MP who accepted an office of profit under the Crown was obliged to leave his post, it being feared that his independence would be compromised if he were in the King's pay. Therefore, the legal fiction was invented that the MP who wished to give up his seat applied to the King for the sinecure post of "Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds" or "Steward of the Manor of Northstead", obsolescent offices of negligible duties and scant profit, but in the King's gift nonetheless. The Chiltern Hundreds were first used as a pretext for resignation on 17 January 1751, by John Pitt, who wanted to vacate his seat for Wareham and stand for Dorchester. The Manor of Northstead was first used as a pretext for resignation on 6 April 1842, by Patrick Chalmers, Member for Montrose District of Burghs. The prohibition was on an MP accepting an office of profit under the Crown, but it did not disqualify someone with such an office being elected to the House of Commons. As a result this meant a by-election when anyone became a government minister, including the Prime Minister. The law was partly changed in 1919, and finally in 1926, so that MPs were no longer disqualified by appointment to government office. The law relating to resignation is now codified and consolidated in section 4 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975: For the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the vacation of the seat of a member of the House of Commons who becomes disqualified by this Act for membership of that House, the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, or of the Manor of

Northstead, shall be treated as included among the offices described in Part III of Schedule 1 to this Act.[1] Other offices that were formerly used for the same purpose are: Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of East Hundred, or Hendred, Berks. This stewardship was first used for parliamentary purposes in November 1763 by Edward Southwell, and was in more or less constant use until 1840, after which it disappeared. This manor comprised copyholds, the usual courts were held, and the stewardship was an actual and active office. The manor was sold by public auction in 1823, but in some manner the Crown retained the right of appointing a steward for seventeen years after that date. Steward of the Manor of Hempholme, Yorkshire. This manor appears to have been of the same nature as that of Northstead. It was in lease until 1835. It was first used for parliamentary purposes in 1845 and was in constant use until 1865. It was sold in 1866. Escheator of Munster. Escheators were officers commissioned to secure the rights of the Crown over property which had legally escheated (forfeited) to it from those attainted or condemned. In Ireland mention is made of escheators as early as 1256. In 1605 the escheatorship of Ireland was split up into four, one for each province, but the duties soon became practically nominal. The escheatorship of Munster was first used for parliamentary purposes in the Irish Parliament from 1793 to 1800, and in the united Parliament (24 times for Irish seats and once for a Scottish seat) from 1801 to 1820. After 1820 it was discontinued and finally abolished in 1838. Steward of the Manor of Old Shoreham, Sussex. This manor belonged to the Duchy of Cornwall. It was first used for parliamentary purposes in 1756, and then, occasionally, until 1799, in which year it was sold by the Duchy to the Duke of Norfolk. Steward of the Manor of Poynings, Sussex. This manor reverted to the Crown on the death of Lord Montague about 1804, but was leased up to about 1835. It was only twice used for parliamentary purposes, in 1841 and 1843. Escheator of Ulster. This appointment was used in the united Parliament three times, for Irish seats only; the last time in 1819. February 1801: William Talbot (Kilkenny City) March 1804: John Claudius Beresford (Dublin City) February 1819: Richard Nevill (Wexford Borough) Steward of the Honour of Otford, Kent. Used once in 1742. Chief Steward and Keeper of the Courts of the Honour of Berkhamsted,

Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Northampton (part of the Duchy of Cornwall). Used once in 1752. Steward of the Manor of Kennington, Surrey. Used once in 1757. Steward of the Manor of Shippon, Berkshire. Used once in 1765.

[edit] See also

List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead List of Stewards of the Manor of East Hendred List of Stewards of the Manor of Hempholme List of Escheators of Munster List of Stewards of the Manor of Old Shoreham List of Stewards of the Manor of Poynings

[edit] References
^ Official text of House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database

[edit] External links

Parliamentary Factsheet on the Chiltern Hundreds (PDF format) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_from_the_British_House_of_Commons"