Journalism of Courage
Advertisement
Premium

An unseemly hurry

By taking the ordinance route on convicted legislators,the UPA invites questions about its motives.

By taking the ordinance route on convicted legislators,the UPA invites questions about its motives.

Contradicting the Supreme Courts recent ruling,the cabinet has cleared an ordinance to shield a convicted MP or MLA from immediate disqualification,if his or her appeal is admitted by a higher court within 90 days. This move has provoked criticism,particularly by the BJP,for its intent,method and timing. Rushing it through an emergency mechanism like the ordinance does invite suspicions that it is motivated by the urge to protect certain individuals rather than to defend a principle.

Though it has been perceived as a purely self-interested action,the fact is that political parties do have a larger point in seeking to reverse the Supreme Courts order. In the name of restoring order and virtue to politics,the court could end up injecting greater unfairness into the system. The judgment reposes far too much trust in the lower judiciary and requiring convicted MPs and MLAs to step down during the appeal period could have dramatic effects,as legislative careers based on years of hard work would hang by a thread,and a flimsy judgment by a subordinate court could potentially impact the fate of coalition governments. Given the slow and inefficient appeals process,this move could introduce new tangles instead of cleansing the legislatures,as the court intended.

A bill was moved to amend the Representation of the People Act to this effect in the monsoon session of Parliament. Like the ordinance,it allowed a legislator to stay on if his or her appeal was under consideration,and participate in proceedings,but not to vote or draw salaries and allowances. That bill was stalled,however,with the BJP and JDU reconsidering their position. Even so,now that a bill has been prepared for consideration,ready to be discussed fully in the next session,what was the need for the cabinet to push through an ordinance? An ordinance is meant to be issued when immediate action is needed and Parliament is not in session. The government has failed to explain what crisis it is responding to,leaving room for speculation about its motives and whom it is protecting. The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is an emergency power,for the executive to meet an emergent situation,but the UPA has,in this last year alone,passed eight ordinances,including on food security and sexual violence. Passing laws requires the government to win over others,present better arguments,deploy political capital to press an agenda it believes in. That process should not be short-circuited without good reason. In this case,the government may have done the right thing the wrong way.

Curated For You

 

Tags:
  • editorial ie Indian Express
Weather
Edition
Install the Express App for
a better experience
Featured
Trending Topics
News
Multimedia
Follow Us
Express PremiumInside India’s dementia care challenge: A wife’s journey as her husband forgot her, slowly
X