India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

State of UPA Government : No mid-term polls : Sonia Gandhi

	August 28, 2006

Congress president Sonia Gandhi has scotched reports that the party may go in for a mid-term poll in the backdrop of opinion poll surveys showing a considerably improved performance by the party in the event of snap elections. Asked by reporters in New Delhi on Friday, August 25, if the Congress would like to benefit from the current swing in the party’s favour, she said, “you yourself referred to mid-term polls as speculation. I do not believe in opinion polls and surveys. I do not take them seriously.”



Sonia Gandhi’s remarks came after a survey carried by two media organisations predicted that the Congress may win 240 seats in the Lok Sabha on its own if elections were held immediately. The survey also indicated that a large number of people supported her for the post of Prime Minister.



CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat, at an interaction with newspersons in Hyderabad, emphatically ruled out the possibility of a mid-term poll for the Lok Sabha. He said the UPA constituents were more or less united and the Left parties, whose support was crucial, were not in the business of destabilising Governments. He said, “I do not think the Congress party will go in for polls.”



Karat said his party wanted a new alternative to emerge. He said, the CPI(M) while extending support to the UPA Government, differed with it on a number of economic issues. He said the alternative his party was looking for extended beyond economic issues, but the CPI(M) was neither in a hurry, nor in search of new alliances for electoral purposes.



Meanwhile, Sonia Gandhi does not appear to have made up her mind on whether to take up the mantle of chairperson of the National Advisory Council again or not even after the Presidential assent to the Office of Profit legislation. She has also not resumed charge of some of the trusts that figure in the 56 positions exempted from disqualification by the legislation.



The question is whether Sonia will take up these positions including that of the NAC again ? The Congress president has not given any indication so far. Party leaders maintain that she will not take any initiative in this regard, adding that it is for the Government to take a decision on the matter.



Those in the Government say, they are in no hurry to install her just yet in the positions she stepped down since the detractors of the office of profit legislation have challenged the law in court. “We do not want any embarrassment for our party president. We will wait for some time to see the outcome of the petitions,” said a leader. The same applies to the trusts Sonia Gandhi had stepped down from.



The Government had established the NAC as a 21-member body to advise it on the implementation of the Common Minimum Programme (CMP). Following the resignation of Sonia Gandhi, and of some other members, including Aruna Roy, who has been campaigning against the proposed amendments (now dumped) to the RTI Act - the Government needs to reconstitute the panel.



In other words, it will have to issue a fresh notification when it appoints the chairperson and other members.



Since the terms of reference of the NAC will remain the same as stated in 2004, the chairperson is also expected to retain the rank of cabinet status.





Assembly elections in four states before March 17



Assembly elections in Utter Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Punjab and Manipur are to be held before March 17 next year. Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswamy said in Dehradun on August 26 that state electoral authorities have been asked to complete the preparations for the polls by the end of this year.





Domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha goes



A constitution bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment to the Representation of the People Act dispensing with the domicile requirement for getting elected to the Rajya Sabha.



Prior to the amendment, a candidate had to be a voter in the State from where he was to be elected. This requirement was dispensed with through the amendment in August 2003.



The five-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, also upheld another amendment, introducing open ballot, instead of secret ballot, for elections to the House.



The Bench dismissed a batch of petitions filed by former Rajya Sabha member Kuldip Nayar and others, questioning the legality of these amendments.



The Bench pointed out that the Rajya Sabha’s role was somewhat secondary to that of the Lok Sabha. It said: “[The] Rajya Sabha is a forum to which experienced public figures get access [to] without going through the din and bustle of a general election, which is inevitable in the case of [the] Lok Sabha.”



On the petitioners’ contention that the amendments violated the concept of federalism in the democratic set-up, the Bench said the principle was not territory-related. Further, “residence or domicile” is not the essential ingredient of the structure and the composition of the Upper House.





Disqualification plea against PM



The Election Commission has said that it will examine the petition seeking the disqualification of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister P. Chidambaram as Members of Parliament on the ground of allegedly holding offices of profit as trustees of the high profile Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswamy said in Dehradun on August 26 that a complaint had been received against the two leaders. He told reporters, “We have received this complaint only three days ago ; we will find the exact position like the date of appointment and benefits, if any.”



No details of the complaint, or complainant were available, but it appears that the petition was referred by the Office of President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to the Election Commission “for necessary action.”



The Congress refrained from making any comment on the petition against the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister. Party general secretary Janardhan Dwivedi said, “We have not seen the contents of the petition, let the Election Commission do its job.”



Observers say that the petition appears to lack substance on two counts. First, does a trust like the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation come under the ambit of Article 102(1)(a) ? The Article states that MPs shall be disqualified if they hold any “office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder.” As trustees, do Dr. Singh and Chidambaram hold offices of profit under Article 102(1)(a) ? The clear answer is `No.’ The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation does not come under the umbrella of the Central or any State Government.



Secondly, the amended Act provides specific and definitive protection. A new sub-section has been introduced under Section 3, which lists “certain offices of profit which not to disqualify.” By virtue of this insertion, Section 3(l), among the offices that do not attract disqualification are “the office of the Chairperson or trustee (by whatever name called) of any Trust, whether public or private, not being a body specified in the Schedule.” Therefore, even though the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation is not listed in the Schedule of specific offices that do not attract disqualification, Section 3(l) provides omnibus insurance against disqualification for members of any trust.



It may be recalled that when the controversy over the office of profit issue snowballed, Congress president Sonia Gandhi resigned as chairperson of the National Advisory Council and from the Lok Sabha. Later, before she re-contested in Rae Bareli, she resigned as chairperson of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation as well as from a number of other trusts such as the Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust and the Jawahar Bhavan Trust.