Relief for AAP; MLAs disqualification stopped by Delhi HC; big boost for CM Arvind Kejriwal, but for Alka Lamba, 19 others, there is a catch
Office of profit case: The EC had referred to the fact that the MLAs had been appointed parliamentary secretaries to ministers in the Delhi government in March 2015. The MLAs then approached the Delhi high court challenging their disqualification. The MLAs who were disqualified were: Alka Lamba, Adarsh Shastri, Sanjeev Jha, Rajesh Gupta, Kailash Gehlot, Vijendra Garg, Praveen Kumar, Sharad Kumar, Madan Lal Khufiya, Shiv Charan Goyal, Sarita Singh, Naresh Yadav, Rajesh Rishi, Anil Kumar, Som Dutt, Avtar Singh, Sukhvir Singh Dala, Manoj Kumar and Nitin Tyagi.
In a big relief to 20 AAP MLAs in the office of profit case, the Delhi High Court today has restored their membership even though they were disqualified by Election Commission. While this has come as a big boost for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, there is a catch! The has been referred case back to Election Commission (EC) by HC. Earlier on January 19, the EC had recommended the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs for holding offices of profit. Two days later, President Ram Nath Kovind approved the disqualification.
The EC had referred to the fact that the MLAs had been appointed parliamentary secretaries to ministers in the Delhi government in March 2015. The MLAs then approached the Delhi high court challenging their disqualification. The MLAs who were disqualified were: Alka Lamba, Adarsh Shastri, Sanjeev Jha, Rajesh Gupta, Kailash Gehlot, Vijendra Garg, Praveen Kumar, Sharad Kumar, Madan Lal Khufiya, Shiv Charan Goyal, Sarita Singh, Naresh Yadav, Rajesh Rishi, Anil Kumar, Som Dutt, Avtar Singh, Sukhvir Singh Dala, Manoj Kumar and Nitin Tyagi.
It may be noted that a Delhi high court bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar had cwrapped up hearings in the case on February 28, reservin the judgment after the legislators, the EC and other parties had submitted their stand.
Watch this video on AAP budget
The plea against the EC order was that they were not given a chance to explain themselves. They had submitted, “It is also that even a temporary government employer cannot be removed on the grounds of misconduct without holding a full-fledged inquiry. However, in the present case, the members of the legislative assembly were removed without holding a full-fledged inquiry and without giving them an opportunity to explain if they ever held any office of profit.”
By accepting cookies, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.