Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday defended the contentious bill that proposes to disqualify elected representatives if they are arrested on serious charges and continue to be in jail for more than 30 days, arguing it was required as "governments are being run from jail" in recent times.
In what seemed to be a straight jibe at Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Mr. Shah instructed BJP spokespersons that the Constitution is unclear about the issue, terming the situation as "unjust to people's expectations."
The Lok Sabha was, however, on the brink of chaos as three connected bills were moved, with Opposition parties calling them unconstitutional. Temper was lost when copies of the bill were ripped and hurled at Mr. Shah during his speech in the House.
Subsequently, referring to BJP spokespersons, Mr. Shah again asserted, "The intent of the bill is that a government cannot be operated from prison… It is unfair to the hopes with which the public elects its reps. There is no sense in the Constitution on this, that needs to be clarified."
When questioned as to why the bill was being proposed at this time, the minister claimed that India had never before experienced such cases where administrations were operated from behind bars. He pointed to cases in Delhi and Tamil Nadu, noting that in 2017, a petition accused Sasikala Natarajan of controlling government decisions while in prison. More recently, Mr. Kejriwal remained Chief Minister for about six months following his arrest in the Delhi excise policy case, inviting legal challenges.
The Delhi High Court had noted that the Constitution is mum on whether the Chief Minister must resign if arrested. The Supreme Court also refused to step in, noting, "We are skeptical whether a court can ask an elected chief minister to resign or not act as a Chief Minister or Minister… we leave it to Arvind Kejriwal to decide."
Today, Indian politicians are asked to leave office only after being convicted, in line with the credo of "innocent until proven guilty." By contrast, bureaucrats and other civil servants are suspended upon being arrested and sacked on being convicted. Legal experts observe that while there is no constitutional prohibition on operating an administration from prison, the practice is also unimaginable due to logistical limitations. BJP leaders contend that the drafters of the Constitution never imagined a situation where politicians would not give up power while in prison.
The Opposition has come together in opposition to the proposal, stating it is intended to dilute parties ruling states outside the BJP fold.
Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee claimed, "The BJP government wishes to derive pleasure out of power and ruling without accountability. The Bill has been introduced to silence Opposition parties who are raising questions on behalf of the people."
His party co-member Kalyan Banerjee continued, "Can they possibly dethrone the Chief Minister? If the ED or CBI presents a case—everybody knows they present bogus cases. Conviction is less than 0.5 per cent. This is unconstitutional, so we protested."
MP Manish Tewari in Parliament questioned the move on constitutional grounds, terming it "destructive to the basic structure of the Constitution." He contended that it could be used in a grossly abusive manner, contravening Article 21 on due process and diluting the cabinet accountability to the legislature.
AAP, which stands to lose the most, charged the Centre with a political conspiracy. Delhi Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj alleged the Bill was a sequel to previous efforts to bring down Opposition governments. "Arvind Kejriwal had previously stated that if he stepped down, the Centre would have framed other AAP leaders in fake cases, got them arrested, and brought down the Delhi government. This is what is being done now," he said.
Read also| Give Affidavit Within 7 Days or Apologise on 'Vote Theft' Claims: CEC Tells Rahul Gandhi
Read also| Shashi Tharoor Once Again ‘Backs’ Controversial Disqualification Bill
