EC rejects AAP plea to examine petitioner in office-of-profit case

It also states that the MLAs failed to make a case for calling any witnesses.

The petitioner, Prashant Patel, has sought the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs (one has resigned) for holding the office of parliamentary secretaries to Cabinet ministers, which he claims is an office-of-profit.

AAP spokesperson Saurabh Bhardwaj said, “The EC order shows it is prejudiced against AAP MLAs, and that it does not want to grant the basic right to cross-examine the witnesses, petitioner and respondents. We will challenge this arbitrary order before the High Court as it violates the basic principles of natural justice.”

The term ‘office-of-profit’ has been defined in the Constitution, and it prohibits MPs and MLAs from accepting government positions that carry some financial remuneration, or any other benefit such as office space or even a car. Any violation of this provision attracts disqualification of the legislator. The aim of this provision is to preserve the independence of the legislature by keeping its members away from any temptations from the executive.

The EC had held six hearings in the office-of-profit complaint against AAP since the Delhi High Court said on March 23 that the the Commission’s opinion — tendered to the President, on January 19, disqualifying 20 AAP MLAs — had failed to “comply with the principles of natural justice” as the EC had not given them a hearing.

AAP officials said the EC’s order states that the body was supposed to only define what office-of-profit means and if the MLAs fall under that category, as per the HC order.

In its March 23 order, the HC had said, “Opinion of the ECI… is vitiated and bad in law for failure to comply with the principles of natural justice.”

Sources said a meeting of the 20 MLAs has been called to decide the future course of action, and their individual defence.