My intention is to use the philosophy of KISS – Keep it simple and short.
AAP had won too many seats (67 out of 70) and most were new comers or jumping ships from other parties. Keeping this strange group together (without any long term party loyalty) and keeping them on tight lease was always going to be a tough game.
Thus after winning in Feb 2015, one of the first decision the party took to keep its MLAs happy – to appoint them as Parliament Secretaries. The chosen ones were allowed to have almost ministerial powers, office, car services on job, etc. Everyone knew that appointment was illegal and will not last a legal test of any kind. However the larger feeling may have been of arrogance to ‘see when it comes’ and whether at all it comes to legal issues/court case. The power of 67 MLAs is too much to bear for some and in case of a new party, probably it was a tad too much to handle.
The issue came to light and one fine gentleman and lawyer Mr. Prashant (AAP has issues with this name- another being lawyer Prashant Bhushan) went to President of India to complain. Mr President sent the matter to the Election Commission for review and notices were issued to MLAs by the EC. AAP did not bother too much about the EC and went to court. Delhi High court hit a six on the yorker ball from AAP and all appointments were declared Null and Void ab initio.
This was a tight rope walk, and AAP started to feel the heat on the subject. All concentration and propaganda now changed from the initial claims of public service and started to focus on delaying tactics for EC to somehow pass the 5 years. It actually kind of worked as EC took about 2 years to decide on the issue but finally the MLAs are disqualified. Now AAP is crying foul.
Let us look at their reactions:
1. EC is Modified – the statement is laughable and rules have been followed; they were free to approach court and court also pronounced this to be legal.
2. President is Modified – No comments on such low level remarks. (Mr President – we apologize to you for such low level cheap politics and spoiling/involving the name of the President of India)
3. Other states also appointed such ranks – Parliament, state assemblies and Union Territories have the right to review the purview of office of profit and can make laws that will bring some ranks out of this purview. This route has been taken by many state assemblies and such appointments were made. However as the interpretation is subjected to legal review, most of these appointments have been cancelled by the courts. In other states, the appointments were made after the law was cleared in assembly, the membership of the MLAs remained intact and this is as per the prevalent laws.
4. AAP also tried to make such rule/law basis retrospectively in June 2015 – this law was cancelled by the President and this can be a matter of debate on constitutional levels whether this was right or wrong. President order is final and members remain disqualified and they can cry victimhood all they want
Hope I have cleared some of the issues for public domain. Now the public questions to be answered by AAP if they happen to come across this article:
Q1 – Why it was required for these MLAs to be given any appointment? Could they not have done the same job as MLAs?
Q2 – AAP party policy and illegal appointment has cost these seats to these MLAs. What will be the moral equivalence from the party top leadership to these MLAs who apparently have not been caught with any mal-intent but lost their seats ONLY due to following party order.
Q3 – As the so called appointment was to ensure better public service (there must have been a vision document for such planning), how it was fulfilled when the High court had cancelled the appointment? Does AAP confirm that such jobs have been left unattended? If they have been otherwise fulfilled and completed, pls use loop options and ask Q1 again.
Q4 – They are free to explore all legal options and go to public with their complaints. However in case of the elections for these seats – will they confirm to use the same candidates for the re-election? This is morally binding on them. Only this will clear their intentions once and for all.
Q5 – Will they acknowledge if the majority of the seats are lost in the new elections, that their policies are being rejected by the public at large?
Q6 – Will Mr Kejriwal resign owing to the moral responsibility of losing these seats (in case of elections and losing these seats)? He has a right to continue as the Chief Minister but then should stop lecturing on being different than other political parties.
There can be many questions but I am sure answers to above 6 should be enough to clarify the intentions of the AAP for the public.
What I intend to highlight is AAP has probably done more damage to Indian politics than other parties as AAP came as breath of fresh air with fresh ideas and morals but faded to same old Indian politics and its compulsion to remain in power