OoP Bill sails through Rajya Sabha

‘‘The list of offices to be exempt shows that the UPA is abusing its numbers to bring forward a legislation, which is only aimed at saving faces behind those offices,’’ Jaitley said.

He set the debate’s tone for the Opposition when he pointed out that besides the office of the NAC once headed by Sonia Gandhi, the majority of the 55 other offices to be exempted were occupied by Left leaders. ‘‘It is a price of their support,’’ he said.

Unmindful of the BJP’s support of a similar legislation in the Jharkhand Assembly to save its ministers from a similar plight, which was raised by several supporters of the Bill in Parliament, Jaitley carried on his tirade: ‘‘From today, the definition of the UPA’s Common Minimum Programme (CMP) has changed to Common Minimum Profit.’’

When his turn came, Abhishek Manu Singhvi of Congress asked why the BJP opposed the Bill in Delhi when its government in Jharkhand had exempted 22 offices. ‘‘The BJP’s double standard stands exposed,’’ said Singhvi. ‘‘What is good in Jharkahand is obviously not good in Delhi.’’

CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury was candid to admit that 18 of the posts sought to be exempted fell in West Bengal and Tripura, two states ruled by the party. Yechury tried to deflect criticism saying it was imperative to ‘‘look at the larger issue of defining the office-of-profit.’’ ‘‘If the offcie is clearly defined there will be no need for legislation to keep on adding more posts to the list of offices-of-profit. It is crucial a parliamentary committee is constituted to define the office to remove all doubts at the outset and settle the matter once and for all,’’ he said.

Samajwadi Party MP Amar Singh pleaded ‘‘guilty’’ saying that if all those offcies were not in the ambit of law, there would have been no need for the Bill. Singh is one of the beneficiaries of the legislation and is supporting the Bill. ‘‘If all were clean where was the need for such a law?’’ he asked. ‘‘I am also pained that this House failed to protect my colleague Jaya Bachchan over the issue, but this Bill is now being brought to save other people,’’ Singh said.

Those who opposed the Bill included the AIADMK, TDP, JD(U), Trinamool Congress and RSP. They said it was anti-democratic by being self-serving and selective, and by undermining the Constitution.

Law Minister HR Bhardwaj defended the Bill by saying that these matters were discussed when he contacted leaders from all parties. ‘‘Those who call this Bill immoral, unethical, unconstitutional are either ignorant or not up to date,’’ he said. ‘‘The present legislation, which has been in force since 1978, was ammended by the Janata government when it said a list of offices that are not already declared in Parliament had to be drawn. So, how can the BJP call this exercise unconstitutional?’’ he asked.