Major setback to Aam Aadmi Party in office of profit case against its MLAs: 10 Points

The EC order stated that the commission was of the "considered opinion" that the AAP MLAs did hold "de facto the office of parliamentary secretaries. Photo: PTI

NEW DELHI: In a major setback to Delhi's ruling Aam Aadmi Party, the Election Commission on Saturday rejected its plea of not to disqualify 21 party MLAs — who were appointed parliamentary secretaries — for taking an office of profit.

• The EC order stated that the commission was of the "considered opinion" that the AAP MLAs did hold "de facto the office of parliamentary secretaries from March 13, 2015 to September 8, 2016".
• The EC said, "the MLAs did hold de facto the office of Parliamentary Serectaries from 13th March 2016 to 8th March 2016 and the interpretation as sought to be put by them on the order dated 08th September 2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that they did not hold any office is not legally tenable."
• The office of profit petition was filed against 21 AAP MLA. Later, proceedings were dropped against Jarnail Singh after he resigned as the Rajouri Garden MLA to contest Assembly polls in Punjab.

• The order comes days before Chief Election Commissioner Nasim Zaidi demits office in July.
• Election Commissioner O P Rawat, who recused himself from the case after Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had questioned his impartiality, has not signed on the order.
• The petitioner, Prashant Patel, maintained that the high court order should have no bearing on the case being heard by the EC as the MLAs were enjoying the fruits of that office till their appointment was set aside by the high court.

• On September 8, the high court had set aside the appointment of the 21 AAP MLAs as parliamentary secretaries. The court had said the order to appoint them as parliamentary secretaries was given without the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor.
• A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal had set aside the March 13, 2015 government order after the counsel appearing for the Delhi government "conceded" that it was issued without taking concurrence or views of the LG.
• The poll panel had heard the case on December 16 last before it got busy with Assembly elections in five states.
• On March 27, the commission had reserved its order on the issue.