Breaking silence, Speaker criticises Kalam on office of profit: ‘unjust…it was obnoxious’

“I was never president of the society and SSDA chairman is not an office of profit. I never got an opportunity to explain the charges against me. The President’s office did not seek my explanation and the EC acted like an investigating agency. When the government later expanded the list of exception for office of profit, it looked I was being exonerated,” Chatterjee said. “I would say it was obnoxious.”

Chatterjee said the entire office of profit controversy appeared as if to fix people one after another, and the people charged were left to prove their innocence rather than those making allegations asked to prove it. “It was as if anyone can write anything and there would be an inquiry,” he said.

“Despite my greatest regard for President Kalam, I must say he was wrongly advised. He should not have used the Presidential reference against another constitutional authority without intense scrutiny. It was a plain letter written by one individual, factually wrong and without any supporting evidence. Now I am left with the allegation of having been rescued by the government. There was not even a sworn affidavit. Otherwise, I could have taken to legal recourse,” the Speaker said.

The Speaker said he was disappointed over the lack of consensus over opening proceedings of Parliamentary committees to the media. Chatterjee says he pushed for it but the move could not be implemented as only the Left supported it. “I believe nothing should be kept off the people in democracy. I was recently visiting the House of Commons and expressed a desire to witness the proceedings of a committee. I was taken to the committee on finance where the governor of the Bank of England was deposing. The media was there, and even I was there. What is the harm in it?” he said.

Chatterjee, who recently disqualified four MPs under anti-defection laws, said that (disqualification) is a power that he would be happy without. “I would not mind the EC deciding on cases of disqualification. There are instances in which presiding officers are unable to take a legally sound decision or (are) misusing their powers. Presiding officers act as a tribunal in such cases, and are liable to be challenged in courts. Handing over this power to an autonomous body can save the presiding officers from controversies,” he said.