Modi’s Political Insecurity Explains Delhi’s Legislative Wrangle

Centre’s intention of tainting AAP ahead of Assembly polls explains row over office of profit, writes Ashutosh.

Let me begin with a couple of questions. Why did the Modi government, through the President, reject the Bill related to the 21 MLAs? It can be construed as a routine legislative process. If it is normal, why is the AAP creating so much ruckus? And if TV channels are calling AAP names , should the party take it in its stride?

As an outsider, I would have also probably struggled with such questions. But, today I am an insider who is privy to a lot of information that tells a different story. Firstly, the rejection of the Bill is not a routine matter.

People are not aware that this Bill was passed by the Delhi Assembly in the month of June, last year. The notification appointing 21 MLAs as parliamentary secretaries was done in the month of March the same year. The Bill has kept moving from the Lieutanant Governor’s (LG) desk to the home minister’s table in North Block since then.

Retrospective Legislation Not New

In normal practice, such a Bill should be either rejected or assented to within a week or two. But here no action was taken for almost a year. Only when the AAP government raised an alarm last month, the home ministry returned this bill to the LG, requesting him to exercise his discretion. The LG refused to decide yet again. Rather, he sent the file to the President who sent it back to the home ministry, and the latter advised the President to reject the Bill. The President, bound by the Constitution, had no option but to accept the advice of the government.

Now the moot question is why did the Modi government keep the Bill hanging for so long? There has to be some reason. It can’t be a constitutional reason as retrospective legislation is not new.

Similar Precedents

In 2006, a crisis had erupted which threatened the existence of the Manmohan Singh government as 40 MPs including the Prime Minister, Finance Minister P Chidambaram, speaker Somnath Chatterjee and Deputy Leader of opposition VK Malhotra were accused of holding a second paying position. Sonia Gandhi’s name was also dragged into it. She resigned and got reelected but for others a retrospective legislation was brought in, exempting 46 posts from the ambit of the office of profit. This was called the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill 2006.

At the same time, the Sheila Dikshit government in Delhi, fraught with a similar problem as 18 of her MLAs were caught in the office of profit crisis, passed a Bill with retrospective effect in the Delhi Assembly. Since there was a friendly Congress government at the Centre, the Bill was promptly assented to without any fuss. This legislation was challenged in the Delhi High court. The court did not find any fault and rejected the BJP’s Vijay Jolly’s petition.

In Jharkhand, the BJP government also did the same in 2006. Retrospective legislation was also done in Chhattisgarh by the Ajit Jogi government on the issue of office of profit which was accepted by the Election Commission.

Is it Centre’s Ploy?

So why did the Modi government decide to reject the Bill without giving any reason for doing so? Let me inform the readers of this column that this is not the first Bill that has been withheld by the Modi government for more than a year.

The Delhi Assembly since its inception in 2015 has passed 23 Bills including 4 Bills of Appropriation. No government can withhold a money Bill, so Bills of appropriation were assented to but on remaining 19, no decision was taken until very recently.

These developments give a sense that the Delhi Assembly has been turned into a non-entity. Drafting a law is legislature’s basic character. It was rendered constitutionally irrelevant as it could not make a law as mandated by the Constitution.

It could discuss, debate and pass a Bill, however without the signature of the executive authority — either of the LG or the home minister or the President — the Bills are infructuous and have no meaning. Why did the Modi Government do this with Delhi?

AAP in the past has tried to talk to several senior ministers and even to the Prime Minister, but no concrete answer was ever received.

Few senior officers suggested that we should stop criticising the Prime Minister. As an opposition party it is our duty to criticise the government of the day at the Centre. This is democracy. Criticism is constitutional.

As we dug deeper, a different pattern emerged.

Targeted by the Centre?

• There isn’t a valid constitutional reason behind withholding assent on the Bill on parliamentary secretaries.
  
• Both BJP and Congress governments have passed laws with retrospective effect, and exempted certain positions from the ambit of office of profit.
  
• Barring the money Bills that can’t be withheld, Delhi government has struggled to get some 19 Bills passed since its inception in 2015.
  
• Withholding assent to a Bill smacks of political insecurity, as Punjab and other states go to polls, where AAP is expected to perform spectacularly.
  
• Centre’s intention of holding by-elections in Delhi is meant to divert AAP’s attention as Assembly polls in other states draw near.
  

Political Gameplan

Modi had never lost elections since he became the Chief Minister in Gujarat. Delhi was the first state where he tasted defeat. The scale of defeat badly punctured his aura of invincibility; it was a huge dent to his persona.

We were told that he simply could not accept it. He was advised by his spin doctors and strategists that the AAP had a potential to emerge as a serious national alternative with their moral fibre of honesty and integrity. The examples of how Jayaprakash Narayan and VP Singh turned the tables against the likes of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were given. Arvind Kejriwal has emerged as a threat to Modi and other established big leaders of all hues.

Those who had contempt for AAP; and also those who underestimated AAP as a one-time phenomenon, have had to eat their words in Punjab where pollsters are predicting that AAP might win 96 to 100 seats out of 117. Similarly, AAP is doing wonders in Goa too. Uttarakhand, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh are also ready to welcome AAP in a big way.

For a party with meagre resources and less than four years of existence, such developments are phenomenal. Today the Congress is withering away from every corner of the country. It has lost every election where it was pitted against the BJP.

However, the BJP is losing wherever it is confronted by non-Congress parties. And among non-Congress and non-BJP parties, AAP is the only one which has a national footprint and appeal. Modi being a shrewd leader knows that this is dangerous for him.

So, the rejection of the Bill is an attempt by the Modi government to portray AAP as a party which indulges in corruption. It is also an attempt to project that AAP is not a serious party; does not believe in constitutionality of governance and that the people of Punjab and other states should not take risks with such a party.

The Modi government will try to get AAP MLAs disqualified so that the by-elections could be held before or at the time of Punjab and Goa Assembly polls. AAP, in its attempt to save its borough in Delhi, will not be able to concentrate fully in these two states.

The game plan is set. The time has been carefully chosen. Constitutionality is not the issue. It is the politics and also the psychology of a leader who does not tolerate competition. So, the issue of 21 MLAs will not be an isolated incident; many more such attacks will follow but AAP will emerge stronger. And yes, it is proving to be a good training drill for all of us in AAP to weather such political onslaughts.

(The writer is an author and spokesperson of AAP. He can be reached at @ashutosh83B)

Also read:

Disqualifying AAP MLAs Tough as Office of Profit Rule not Violated

AAP May Not Have Violated ‘Office of Profit’ Clause: Legal Expert