The Hindu : Front Page : Judgment reserved in office-of-profit case

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Mar 06, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Judgment reserved in office-of-profit case

Legal Correspondent

Retrospective effect can’t be a ground for questioning law: Gopal Subramaniam
Petitioners have raised a vital
question: Chief Justice

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved verdict on the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006, exempting 55 offices from disqualification.

Continuing his arguments before a Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam said Parliament had the power to enact any law with retrospective effect.

Quoting earlier judgments, he said it was an accepted norm that a law could not be questioned merely because it gave retrospective effect to a proposal.

Uniform exemption

Responding to Justice Raveendran’s observation that the government’s intention seemed to be to protect individuals rather than protecting office, Mr. Subramaniam said: “Prima facie the exemptions are meant for 55 individuals. The court is right in saying that it [exemption] should apply to all authorities equally.”

When Mr. Subramaniam said a Joint Committee of Parliament had sought information from the States about offices that might attract disqualification, Justice Raveendran intervened and said: “The matter should be reviewed by the committee against each office and each person. But once the five-year period is over, it becomes immaterial” and the issue would be of academic interest.

Appearing on behalf of Attorney-General Milon Banerjee,

Additional Solicitor-General Mohan Parasaran questioned the maintainability of the petitions contending that no fundamental right was involved. He said the right to contest an election and become a member of Parliament was neither a common law right nor a fundamental right.

However, the Chief Justice said: “The petitioner thinks that 55 persons who are not qualified or ought to be disqualified should not be sitting in Parliament. It is a vital question for democracy and that is why we are hearing the matter.”

The petitions were filed by the Consumer Education and Research Society and Dinesh Trivedi, MP.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page