through a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court. President Abdul Kalam had to shake off the insult by politicians becoming increasingly belligerent and overt in their desire to aggrandize money and power and challenge the rule of law. His obligatory signature is required by the Constitution since the elected members are assumed to know the wishes of the people.
The Trinamool Congress questioned the validity of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006 alleging that it was enacted surreptitiously to benefit certain members of the Parliament (MP) considered essential for the survival of the minority Government. The petition argued that the purpose of Kalam returning the bill to the Government is to allow more discussion, evolve a process, and enact parameters that would better define OOP instead of relying on very old British definitions.
A 3 judge panel sent a “show-cause” notice to the Government and also thereby stopping the {Election Commission (EC)} from accepting the law as enacted. The EC was against the original bill and wanted a tighter law that would remove ambiguity.
Legal experts aver that the notice has much wider impact than the OOP. Firstly, it will thwart sycophantic efforts of some Congressmen to coax Sonia Gandhi to resume her position as the National Advisory Committee (NAC), uncharitably targeted by the Opposition as the parallel or oversight structure in the Government. Secondly, it complicates measures to create a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) that will investigate this issue more thoroughly because the usual candidates may not available to participate if the SC finds the Bill unconstitutional therefore rendering their election invalid. Thirdly, similar extra-constitutional bills such as the reservation for Other Backward Classes, Tribal Bill, Wildlife Act, etc. passed to benefit constituents and safeguard specific constituencies may also be reviewed for validity.
Some in the current Parliament have been arguing that the Parliament is supreme and beyond the purview of the courts and this view has been reportedly challenged by the Law Minister cautioning against overt extra-Constitutional behavior that could be cited for contempt.
