SC reserves judgment for a week
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, July 26 2021: The Supreme Court of India on Monday reserved for a week its judgment on the Writ Petition no.151-2021 and Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Congress MLA DD Thaisii seeking disqualification of 12 MLAs who were appointed as parliamentary secretaries, contending that the posts fell under Office of Profit.

On July 5, a bench of the apex Court's Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose heard the cases via video conferencing and fixed July 26 for announcing the final judgement.

However, on Monday, the bench reserved its judgment for one more week.

Mention may be made here that the ruling Manipur BJP government appointed MLAs L Susindro (Khurai AC), N Indrajit (Kshetrigao), L Rameshwor (Keirao), Th Satyabrata (Yaiskul), H Dingo (Sekmai), Dr S Ranjan (Konthoujam), S Subashchandra (Naoriya Pakhanglakpa), K Robindro (Mayang Imphal), Leishiyo Keishing (Phungyar), Khasim Vashum (Chingai), Awangbow Newmai (Tamei AC) and independent MLA Asab Uddin (Jiribam AC) as parliamentary secretaries on March 15, 2017.The petitioner urged the Supreme Court for the expeditious decision by the Governor as to the disqualification of 12 BJP members of the Manipur Legislative Assembly under Article 192 for holding Offices of Profit on their appointment as Parliamentary Secretaries.

Thaisii urged the Court to direct the Election Commission to perform its Constitutional obligation under Article 192 and submit its opinion as to the disqualification to the Governor, in the interest of justice and for maintaining the purity of the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out "The Manipur High Court has already held that there is no concept of the office of Parliamentary secretary and that they are offices of profit.

They have also come up in appeal here.

In the meantime, the Governor has written to the Election Commission and apparently, the Election Commission has written back to the Governor...There is a newspaper report- but we don't know what that advice is...".

The bench was informed on behalf of the Election Commission of India that the grievance of the petitioner was that the Commission was not taking any action under Article 192 and that the ECI has already rendered its opinion to the Manipur Governor in January in compliance with Article 192, and as a result, these matters have become infructuous.

Sibal responded, "We have amended the petition, asking for the opinion of the EC to be put up and we have asked the Governor to place on record what the decision is.

From January, we are today in July - it can't be that we don't know what the decision is.

One way or the other, we wish to know.

That is the whole point.

The Governor since January has not taken any decision".

"The Election Commission said the opinion was rendered in January.

We are in July and the Governor has still not decided.

There is no point in my going back to the Governor to decide if they have not decided in six months...

If it is against me, fine, and if it is in my favour, fine.

But these are constitutional authorities who have constitutional obligations to decide the matter", pressed Sibal.

The government of Manipur had enacted the Manipur Parliamentary secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2012, enabling the Chief Minister to appoint members of Manipur Legislative Assembly as Parliamentary secretary with the status and rank of a minister of a state.

In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the scheme of Article 194 does not expressly authorise the state legislature to create an office such as that of the Parliamentary secretary.

Subsequently, the State of Manipur passed the Manipur Parliamentary secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018.The Manipur High Court was moved claiming that the main Act of 2012 also lacks legislative competence, as in the case of Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 which was declared as unconstitutional by the above decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bimolangshu Roy vs State of Assam.

The Manipur Parliamentary Secretary Acts of 2012 and 2018 ceased to exist after the Manipur High Court pronounced them invalid and unconstitutional in a judgment on September 17, 2020 .

Comment