AAP’s defence: Parliamentary secretaries in other states entitled to salary, perks
AAP defended itself by drawing parallels with other states that have parliamentary secretaries.
CM Arvind Kejriwal also accused Prime Minister Modi of throwing a spanner in the works of the Delhi government.
Drawing flak for the appointment of 21 parliamentary secretaries, senior AAP leaders Tuesday rummaged through volumes of legal texts to double-check the definition of “office of profit” — a term that is set to linger in internal deliberations of the party.
As assent to the Bill validating the appointments was withheld by President Pranab Mukherjee Monday, triggering a volley of allegations from the BJP and Congress, the AAP defended itself by drawing parallels with other states that have parliamentary secretaries entitled to a salary, perks and compensation.
WATCH VIDEO | Did AAP’s Parliamentary Secretaries Enjoy ‘Office Of Profit’ — That Is The Question
Senior party leaders said while the appointments were being discussed last year, the party had run through
several definitions of “office of profit” as stated in previous judgments.
“We were aware of the Jaya Bachchan case. Keeping that in mind, the secretaries have not been offered any ‘pecuniary benefits’. Appointing them as parliamentary secretaries does not mean it becomes an ‘office of profit’,” said a senior leader.
Following instructions to lie low, as the party leadership engaged the BJP and the Congress, most of the secretaries refused to comment on the issue. Late Monday, AAP MLA from Jangpura — also a parliamentary secretary — tweeted a picture of him sleeping on the floor in a two-room rented flat and asked, “Do you call this office of profit Mr. PM?”
Responding to allegations by the BJP that the 21 secretaries were allotted a room by the Assembly speaker, another parliamentary secretary said, “We have not taken any benefits from the state government, not even a car for official use. The room was allotted by the legislative assembly, which is different from drawing any benefits from the executive. It is a technical difference and needs to be understood in the legal sense.”
[related-post]
Party spokesperson Raghav Chadha added, “In the letter issued to the 21 secretaries by the general administration department, nowhere is it mentioned that they will be entitled to any ‘pecuniary benefits’. What ‘office of profit’ are we talking about? Giving a room to someone does not amount to pecuniary benefit. Somnath Bharti, who is not a parliamentary secretary, has a room to himself. The BJP legislators have a room…. So what?”
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal also accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of throwing a spanner in the works of the Delhi government.
“I want to ask Modiji, is he not allowing the Delhi government to function because he is unable to digest defeat in Delhi? Why is he only after disqualifying Delhi’s parliamentary secretaries? Why not Haryana, Nagaland, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Gujarat and others who have parliament secretaries?” he alleged.
Kejriwal added “The President does not take any decision. Probably the file doesn’t even go to him. The decision is taken by the government and Home Ministry decided this…”
Senior AAP leader Sanjay Singh said, “If it is being said that PM Modi did not influence the President’s decision, then it should be believed that President’s rule in Uttarakhand was the President’s decision and even the Emergency in 1975 was because of the President and not Indira Gandhi.”
Leaders claimed there was “no imminent disqualification” of the concerned MLAs.
Share
