Show Para
Directions (Q. 66 - 70): Read the following passage and answer the given questions according to the passage.
  Legal issues become needless controversies when politics casts a dark shadow on them. The issue of the President withholding assent to a Delhi government Bill seeking to protect its 21 parliamentary secretaries from incurring disqualification on the grounds of holding an office of profit, is a flagrant example. On Tuesday, Delhi Chief minister Arvind Kejriwal reacted strongly to the President's rejection of proposed legislation by the Delhi government to exempt the post of Parliamentary Secretary from the purview of 'office-of profit', questioning why Delhi is being singled out as other States too have instituted the post of 'parliamentary Secretary'. The parliamentary secretaries are under notice from the EC to show cause why they should not be disqualified fro holding an 'office of profit'. Mr. Kejriwal contends that his parliamentary secretaries do not draw any salaries or perquisites. He ought to canvass this point before the Election Commission. Such questions arise because the term 'office of profit' and the post of parliamentary secretary do not yet have a clear legal definition.
  Various petitions in the High Court have challenged the appointment of Parliamentary Secretary, arguing that the post is in contradiction to Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution which provides for limiting the number of Ministers in the State Cabinets to 15 percent of the total number of members of the State Legislative Assembly (10% in the case of Delhi, which is not a 'full' state). Because a Parliamentary secretary often holds the rank of Minister of State, the Calcutta High Court, in June 2015, quashed the appointment of 24 Parliamentary Secretaries in West Bengal dubbing it unconstitutional. Similar action was taken by the Bombay High Court in 2009 for the appointment of two Parliamentary Secretaries in Goa and by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2005 for the appointment of eight Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and four Parliamentary Secretaries in the State. In may 2015, the Hyderabad High Court stayed the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries in Telangana. The matters is subjudice in Punjab and Haryana. A legislative solution applicable across the country is needed. That should ensure that there are no double standards in applying the law on office of profit.
  Legal issues become needless controversies when politics casts a dark shadow on them. The issue of the President withholding assent to a Delhi government Bill seeking to protect its 21 parliamentary secretaries from incurring disqualification on the grounds of holding an office of profit, is a flagrant example. On Tuesday, Delhi Chief minister Arvind Kejriwal reacted strongly to the President's rejection of proposed legislation by the Delhi government to exempt the post of Parliamentary Secretary from the purview of 'office-of profit', questioning why Delhi is being singled out as other States too have instituted the post of 'parliamentary Secretary'. The parliamentary secretaries are under notice from the EC to show cause why they should not be disqualified fro holding an 'office of profit'. Mr. Kejriwal contends that his parliamentary secretaries do not draw any salaries or perquisites. He ought to canvass this point before the Election Commission. Such questions arise because the term 'office of profit' and the post of parliamentary secretary do not yet have a clear legal definition.
  Various petitions in the High Court have challenged the appointment of Parliamentary Secretary, arguing that the post is in contradiction to Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution which provides for limiting the number of Ministers in the State Cabinets to 15 percent of the total number of members of the State Legislative Assembly (10% in the case of Delhi, which is not a 'full' state). Because a Parliamentary secretary often holds the rank of Minister of State, the Calcutta High Court, in June 2015, quashed the appointment of 24 Parliamentary Secretaries in West Bengal dubbing it unconstitutional. Similar action was taken by the Bombay High Court in 2009 for the appointment of two Parliamentary Secretaries in Goa and by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2005 for the appointment of eight Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and four Parliamentary Secretaries in the State. In may 2015, the Hyderabad High Court stayed the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries in Telangana. The matters is subjudice in Punjab and Haryana. A legislative solution applicable across the country is needed. That should ensure that there are no double standards in applying the law on office of profit.
© examsnet.com
Question : 66
Total: 155
Go to Question:
More Free Exams:
- IBPS Clerk Mains Previous Papers
- IBPS Clerks Model Papers
- IBPS Clerks Previous Papers
- IBPS PO Mains Previous Papers
- IBPS PO Model Papers
- IBPS PO Previous Papers
- IBPS RRB Officers Previous Papers
- IBPS RRB PO Mains Papers
- IBPS RRB PO Previous Papers
- IBPS SO Model Papers
- SBI Clerk Previous Papers
- SBI Junior Associate Model Papers
- SBI PO Model Papers
- SBI PO Previous Papers