Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Alternatively, it was submitted that the objects and reasons as well as the provisions of the Amendment Act made it obvious that retrospective operation had been given to its provisions with the sole intention of enabling the continuance of MPs' who would have otherwise been disqualified under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution. Therefore, such retrospective operation is unconstitutional. It is submitted that ever since the recommendations of the Bhargava Committee in November, 1955, a constitutional convention had evolved wherein every Lok Sabha had a Joint Committee for the purpose of identifying and classifying `offices of profit'. Whenever a particular `office" had to be exempted from the disqualification rule, the Joint Committee's opinion was sought on the question of whether the said office was an `office of profit' or not, whether the holding of such office by a MP would conflict with his duties, and whether or not the office should be granted exemption. It was only after a report was given by the Joint Committee recommending exemption, that a particular `office' would be exempted. It was contended that the said constitutional convention which has been followed for more than half a century was violated when 55 offices were given a `wholesale' exemption with retrospective effect without obtaining any report from the Joint Committee on the question of whether the said "offices of profit" deserved to be exempted or not. It was hence argued that the Amendment Act was a colourable legislation which violated a well established constitutional convention. It was also contended that the provisions of the impugned legislation violated the guarantee of "equality before law and equal protection of the laws" that has been enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that the offices under certain bodies which had been enumerated in the Schedule, were included without any basis in discernible principles. It was argued that there was no rational criterion for the wholesale exemption of the enumerated 55 `offices of profit' from the disqualification rule, by means of the impugned legislation.

14. The respondents also contended that the Amendment Act did not violate Article 14. They submitted that the past practice of seeking the opinion of a Joint committee on any proposal to add to the list of exempted offices of profit cannot be described as `Constitutional Convention'. It was submitted that even if there was a practice of referring such questions to a Joint Committee, the same cannot denude the power of Parliament to make a law under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution.

15. The aforesaid contentions give rise to the following questions for consideration by this Court:

(i) Whether the Amendment Act retrospectively exempting certain offices of profit from disqualification, violates Articles 101 to 104 of the Constitution and is therefore invalid?
(ii) Whether exemption of as many as 55 offices relating to statutory bodies/non-

statutory bodies, without referring the proposal to the Joint Committee would render the Amendment a colourable legislation which violated any `constitutional convention' or Article 14 of the Constitution ? Re : Question (i)

39. This brings us to the last question. It is not in serious dispute that ever since Bhargava Committee submitted its report in November, 1955, whenever an office of profit had to be exempted the matter used to be referred to a Joint Committee and its opinion whether the office should be exempted or not, was being taken and only when there was a recommendation that a particular office should be exempted, the Act was being amended to add that office to the list of exemptions. However, this was merely a parliamentary procedure and not a constitutional convention. Once the Parliament is recognized as having the power to exempt from disqualification and to do so with retrospective effect, any alleged violation of any norm or traditional procedure cannot denude the power of Parliament to make a law. Nor can such law which is otherwise valid be described as unconstitutional merely because a procedure which was followed on a few occasions was not followed for the particular amendment.