An Arvind Kejriwal Move Prompted Government To Get 'Sack Ministers' Bill
The Centre decided to bring a law to remove Chief Ministers and ministers jailed for more than a month after being charged with serious offences after former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal did not resign after he was arrested in a corruption case last year, top government sources have said.
Mr Kejriwal was arrested in June last year in a corruption case linked to alleged irregularities in Delhi's now-scrapped liquor policy. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) made it clear that he would retain the top post, and his colleagues in the cabinet ran the government on his behalf. Only after he was granted bail in September did he step down and said he would return to the post after the verdict of the "people's court", meaning the Assembly election.
Following his resignation, AAP leader and minister Atishi took over as Chief Minister. She remained in the top post till the Delhi election in February this year, which AAP lost to the BJP.
Sources in the government have said that they wanted to bring the law soon after Mr Kejriwal refused to resign following his arrest. But introducing the law at that point would have been projected by the Opposition as a 'vendetta politics' move. The government, therefore, chose to wait. Eventually, Mr Kejriwal's party was voted out in the Delhi election.
Senthil Balaji Factor
Another case that prompted the government to bring the law, which has drawn strong resistance from the Opposition, is the case of Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji. The DMK minister was arrested in a corruption case in 2023. Following his arrest, Mr Balaji continued as a minister without portfolio. The Madras High Court flagged this, saying a minister without a portfolio is a "constitutional travesty". He later resigned. The DMK leader was granted bail in 2024 and became minister again. In April this year, the Supreme Court heard a petition flagging the possibility of the minister intimidating witnesses and asked Mr Balaji to resign or risk bail cancellation. Eventually, he stepped down again.
Sources said the government believes that this "joke needs to end". "The framers of the Constitution would have hardly thought that arrested ministers of Chief Ministers would want to run the government from jail," a source said.
A Question To Rahul Gandhi
Sources in the government have pointed to how Rahul Gandhi, now Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, opposed the UPA government's 2013 move to bypass a Supreme Court ruling that said MPs and MLAs convicted in a case carrying a jail term of two years will be disqualified from Parliament.
The Congress had eventually scrapped the controversial ordinance. Ironically, this ordinance could have shielded Mr Gandhi when he was disqualified as a Lok Sabha MP following his conviction in a criminal defamation case in 2023.
Citing the Congress leader's 2013 stand, a source in the government said, "If he was against corruption in politics then, why is his party opposing the Constitution Amendment Bill that penalises criminality in politics?"
A Perception Battle
The government does not have the required numbers to ensure the Bill's passage in Parliament as legislation to amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in each House, which the NDA does not have. Why then did the government bring the Bill? Sources say the objective is to put the spotlight on corruption in politics and wage a perception battle against the Opposition.
The Opposition has been trying to corner the government over the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and Congress's allegations of 'vote theft'. Against this backdrop, the Opposition's protest against this legislation would be projected by the government as a reluctance to scuttle an anti-corruption move and block a shift towards cleaner politics.
Sources in the government have also countered the Opposition's allegations that this law may be used to frame non-BJP Chief Ministers by using central agencies. "An arrest is made after a process. At any point, the person can approach the court and seek relief," a source said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Punjab slams Centre over GST losses, demands release of Rs 50,000 crore dues
CHANDIGARH: The AAP-led Punjab government on Thursday slammed the BJP-led Centre after the two-day GST GoM meeting, demanding immediate release of pending Rs 50,000 crore dues while accusing the GST regime of causing massive revenue losses to states. Punjab Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema said GST has inflicted a Rs 1.11 lakh crore loss on the state and alleged that stopping the compensation cess was aimed at weakening state economies, forcing them to 'beg with folded hands' before the Centre. Cheema stressed that Punjab would not have suffered such massive revenue losses had it not joined the 'One Nation-One Tax' scheme. With the compensation cess now scrapped, he called out the BJP government for deliberately wrecking state economies to make them beg before the Centre. He said, "On August 20–21, the GST Group of Ministers met continuously for two days. On Wednesday, the meeting was on life and health insurance. In the evening, a meeting was held on compensation cess. The Chairman told us that today the meeting was on rate rationalisation, and that all members of the compensation cess would participate. Therefore, we also participated in Thursday's meeting.' He continued, "GST came in 2017. In the past eight years, there have been 27 amendments in GST, with exemptions given to different sectors. Fifteen times the GST rates of various goods were reduced. This practice has been continuing in the GST Council for the last eight years, and for the past three years I have been witnessing it myself.' Highlighting the Prime Minister's announcement, Cheema added, 'The Prime Minister declared that there would be two GST slabs - one at 5 per cent and another at 12 per cent - and everyone would celebrate Diwali. But after GST came, who will compensate for the loss suffered by Punjab and other states? Who will pay for this damage? One Nation, One Tax was the scheme of the central government, and all states, including Punjab gave their consent. Everyone agreed that uniform tax rates should prevail across the country so that no state could impose higher or lower taxes on its citizens. But this formula has inflicted a huge loss on Punjab.'
Hans India
23 minutes ago
- Hans India
Presidential reference: 'Political solution' over rushing to SC, says Centre on Governor's delay
New Delhi: The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a "political solution" should be prioritised by the states over "rushing to the top court" when a Governor delays assent to Bills passed by the legislative Assembly. During the hearing on the Presidential reference made under Article 143 of the Constitution in the aftermath of the apex court verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, argued that not every problem needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. "Suppose a particular Governor is sitting over bills, there are political solutions. And such solutions are taking place, but it is not everywhere. It is not everywhere the state government rushes to the Supreme Court. The Chief Minister goes and requests the Prime Minister. The Chief Minister goes and meets the President," SG Mehta, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, said. "There are delegations that go and say, 'These Bills are pending, please speak to the Governor and have him decide one way or the other'. The issue can even be sorted out over the telephone,' Mehta added, suggesting that joint meetings between the CM, the PM, and the Governor could resolve such impasses. He argued that in the absence of an explicit timeline under the Constitution, the question arises whether the Supreme Court can lay one down, even if there exists sufficient justification. "There may be justifications, but justification does not confer jurisdiction," said SG Mehta, emphasising that such issues have existed in every state for decades, but "political maturity" has usually led to "political solutions" through meetings among constitutional functionaries. To lay down timelines for Governors to act on Bills, in the absence of a constitutionally prescribed limit, he contended, would violate the principle of separation of powers and lead to constitutional chaos. Terming separation of powers "a two-way street", SG Mehta said the Supreme Court never issues directions to a co-ordinate constitutional functionary, calling it a matter of "constitutional comity". He added that the apex court cannot prescribe how a constitutional functionary should exercise power, since the court cannot legislate. After CJI B.R. Gavai remarked that withholding assent indefinitely would render the legislature defunct, SG Mehta said the solution lay in a constitutional amendment, but until then, the political process was the way out. The five-judge special Bench, headed by CJI Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, is set to advise the President on whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by a Governor on Bills is justiciable when Article 361 of the Constitution bars judicial review of gubernatorial actions. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court remarked that allowing a Governor to withhold assent to Bills without returning them to the state Assembly would place the functioning of an elected government at the "whims and fancies" of an unelected Governor. When SG Mehta said that if a Governor withholds assent, there is no obligation to return the Bill to the state Assembly for reconsideration, CJI Gavai remarked: "Would we not be giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeal? The government elected with a majority would be at the whims and fancies of the Governor." Mehta argued the Governor's power to withhold assent is meant to be exercised rarely and sparingly, only in extraordinary situations such as when a Bill is unconstitutional, repugnant, or violative of fundamental rights.
India.com
23 minutes ago
- India.com
EC Appoints Two Officers As Observers For Upcoming Vice President Elections
Ahead of the upcoming elections for the post of Vice President of India, the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Thursday appointed two senior officers of the rank of Additional Secretary as Observers to oversee the electoral process. The election, scheduled for September 9, will witness a direct contest between Justice (Retd.) B Sudershan Reddy, backed by the INDIA bloc, and the NDA's nominee, C P Radhakrishnan. The last date for filing nominations is August 21, while candidates can withdraw their nominations until August 25. The Vice Presidential post fell vacant after Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on the first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament on July 21, citing health reasons. Add Zee News as a Preferred Source Officers appointed by the EC as Observers are Sushil Kumar Lohani, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, and D. Anandan, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance. Additionally, Nitin Kumar Shivdas Khade, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, has been placed on the reserve list. Earlier today, Opposition - INDIA bloc's Vice-Presidential nominee and former Supreme Court Judge B Sudershan Reddy filed his nomination papers for the elections and described it as a moment of honour, and pledged to discharge the role with impartiality, dignity, and steadfast commitment, if elected. Reddy filed the nomination in the presence of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi, and Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi. In a statement released after filing his nomination, Justice (Retd.) Reddy said, "Today, I had the honour of filing my nomination papers for the office of the Vice President of India as a joint candidate of the Opposition parties. I did so with a deep sense of humility, responsibility, and unwavering commitment to the values enshrined in our Constitution. "Reflecting on his career and principles, he added, "My life in public service -- as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, as a student of law, and as a citizen rooted in the democratic traditions of this Republic -- has taught me that the true strength of India lies in the dignity of every individual, the protection of constitutional morality, and the unity in our diversity. This election is not merely about one individual."
