New Delhi, July 14: The Election Commission today posted to July 21 the hearing on a petition seeking disqualification of 21 AAP MLAs in an ‘office of profit’ case after the Delhi government, BJP and Congress wanted to be heard in the matter.
“Next hearing will be at 3 PM on July 21 as the parties wanted to exchange pleadings (documents),” an EC functionary said.
The Delhi government wanted to implead in the case as EC had sought details from it on the nature of job of parliamentary secretaries and the perks, if any, they enjoy.Congress and BJP too wanted to become party in the hearing. Now, case documents will be shared with them.
The hearing on the petition filed by lawyer Prashant Patel was scheduled for today. The petitioner had claimed the post of parliamentary secretary comes under the ‘office of profit’.
AAP claimed BJP and Congress were behind the petition and wanted disqualification of its MLAs because they want to “avenge” their defeat in Assembly polls last year.
“The proceedings over the ‘office of profit’ petition began today. Congress was represented by former law minister Salman Khurshid and there was a lawyer from BJP as well.
“This vindicates our stand that BJP and Congress are behind this petition. We hope that the Election Commission will use its good sense and give a verdict accordingly because there are parliamentary secretaries in other states as well,” Jarnail Singh, AAP’s Rajouri Garden MLA, said.
Following the petition, EC had issued notices to the AAP MLAs last month.
In their response, the MLAs said there was no “pecuniary benefit” associated with the post and it comes without any remuneration or power. They had also sought personal hearing before the poll panel in their reply.
The AAP government had appointed 21 parliamentary secretaries to assist its ministers. Subsequently, the city government sought to amend the Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1997, so as to exempt parliamentary secretaries from disqualification provisions in ‘office of profit’ cases.
However, the President refused to give his assent to the Bill.
