send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
The President recently disqualified some Legislators from Delhi Assembly who were appointed as Parliamentary Secretaries. Which of the following statement in this context is correct?
The decision of President was based on the advice of Delhi High Court, which was binding on the President.
Delhi was the first State/UT to appoint its legislators as Parliamentary Secretaries.
The Constitution of India categorically mentions Parliamentary Secretaries as an office of profit under Article 102 and 191.
The State/UT assemblies have the right to exclude certain offices from the list of Office of Profit
- Parliamentary Secretary is a member of the parliament who assists a more senior minister with his or her duties. They often hold the rank of Minister of State and have the same entitlements and is assigned to a government department. Manipur, HP, Mizoram, Assam, Rajasthan, Punjab, Goa are some of the states where MLAs have been appointed Parliament Secretaries by the Government.
In 2015 Delhi government appointed 21 of its legislators as parliamentary secretaries. It was followed by amendments to Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1997, with retrospective effect to exempt the post of parliamentary secretary from the definition of the “office of profit”. However, Lt. Governor’s assent to the amendment bill was not given, requiring the disqualification of the MLAs. Hence, The Election Commission (ECI) recommended President for their disqualification and recommendations of ECI are binding on the President or Governor regarding the issues related to article 102 & article 191.
Article 102 (1) - Disqualifications for membership
A person shall be disqualified as a Member of Parliament for a) Holding an office of profit under government of India or state government; b) Being of unsound mind; c) Being an undischarged insolvent; d) Not being an Indian citizen or for acquiring citizenship of another country.
Joint Committee on offices of profit
It consists of 15 members drawn from both the houses of Parliament. It examines the composition and character of the Committees appointed by the Central and State Governments and recommends what offices should or should not disqualify a person for being, a member of either House of Parliament. It has defined Office of Profit as:
• Whether the holder draws any remuneration, like sitting fee, honorarium, salary, etc. other than Compensatory allowance.
• Whether the body in which an office is held, exercises executive, legislative or judicial powers or confers powers of disbursement of funds, allotments of lands, issue of licences, etc.,
• or gives powers of appointment, grant of scholarship, etc.
• Whether the body in which an office is held wields influence or power by way of patronage.
• Whether the body in which an office is held, exercises executive, legislative or judicial powers or confers powers of disbursement of funds, allotments of lands, issue of licences, etc., or gives powers of appointment, grant of scholarship, etc.
By: Vishal ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses