By Manas Chaudhuri
The contentious issue of Parliamentary Secretaries has become live again. A PIL has been admitted in the Meghalaya High Court and is slated for hearing on 4th May next. One of the live-wire regional parties—-HSPDP—recently impressed upon the Governor to dispense with the posts. The principal opposition party UDP is also on the same page with HSPDP. Besides, CSWO, an active vigilante group, too has lent its voice against the system which foists a fraud on our Constitution. Quite understandably mum is the word from the ruling Congress which first resorted to appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries in 2004 when D D Lapang was the Chief Minister following downsizing of council of ministers to 12 in the House of 60. This was necessitated with the Constitution (91st Amendment Act) 2003 which put a cap on the size of the ministry. Lapang cabinet, prior to 2004, enjoyed a jumbo sized ministry with as large as 39 Ministers!
There can be no two opinions that the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries is a political subterfuge to dodge the Constitution. The idea is that since every MLA can no longer be accommodated in the cabinet, the provision was made for Parliamentary Secretaries to keep the non-ministers’ flock happy with loaves and fishes. Each Parliamentary Secretary enjoys the status , pay and perks as much as a Minister. In reality, they receive an assured sum of Rs 1,03,750 every month. Besides, there are variable allowances which make the pay packet quite hefty. Then there is an allotted vehicle, a government accommodation and other paraphernalia. They have an allotted chamber in the secretariat backed by support staff. All these, practically for no work. For, the Parliamentary Secretaries receive no files, they are seldom consulted by ministers or are required to assist ministers in any manner.
Strange response
In June 2006, when I had first raised the issue in the Assembly, I got a virtual rebuff. When I said that the Government was wasting its scarce resources on “unproductive” expenses on Parliamentary Secretaries all hell broke loose. There was instant objection from the treasury bench. I recall my good friend R G Lyngdoh raised his objection to the use of the term “unproductive” and demanded that the word be expunged. I stood my ground saying that these political appointees were a liability for the state exchequer. I told the government that it was living beyond its means since 78% of the government expenses were met from Central resources and the remaining 22% from the State’s own. I also dared the Government to submit records of the files put up to the Parliamentary Secretaries. Obviously, such utterances could not have pleased the ruling side which had its own political priorities rather than sparing a thought on thoughtful use of resources .
Next morning when the House resumed session, the then Deputy Speaker P W Muktieh, who was in the chair, made a stunning ruling. He said the word “unproductive” used by me for the Parliamentary Secretaries is expunged. When I queried whether the word was an unparliamentary one, the presiding simply replied that he had upheld the submission of Parliamentary Secretary R L Tariang that the use of the expression “unproductive” reflected on him. (ST June 28, 2006). There was no explanation offered how it reflected on an individual member. Indeed, it was politically incorrect to raise the issue of appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries which was driven by political expediency!
When we are in government in 2008, a number of Parliamentary Secretaries were appointed by the multi-party ragtag non-Congress coalition. Frankly, it did not please me a wee bit. As an Independent MLA, who is not in a position to pull his political weight, I suppose there was little room for me to crib. The sitting NPP MLA James Sangma who was then first-time MLA, was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary for Home and Education. As Minister in-charge Higher & Technical Education I made it a point to keep him in the loop. From time to time, I consulted him on issues relating Garo Hills, put up a few files for his views on important policy matters and took him along for my official tours to the outlying areas. That’s the best I could do. As I look back, I feel it is always possible to make the parliamentary secretaries “productive”. I suppose it’s for the concerned minister to take a call.
I also recall that shortly after the Assembly session in 2006, a public spirited person Kyrshan War had filed a PIL in the High Court. Ten years down the line, there is no clue as to the fate of the PIL. Neither the litigant pressed for a verdict nor the Court thought it fit for its disposal.
Ultra vires to Constitution
Meghalaya is not alone in this predicament. Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi have appointed Parliamentary Secretaries at one point of time or the other. The issue has meanwhile been examined by three High Courts and each one of them have ruled in favour of doing away with these posts.
in 2006, Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the appointment of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries. The Court described them as “usurpers of public office”. The Court reminded the Himachal Pradesh Government that Article 164(!A) was inserted in the Constitution primarily to put a check on misuse and drainage of public money and to put a ban on over-sized cabinet. Similarly in 2009, the Bombay High Court ruled that the Parliamentary Secretaries of the rank and status of a cabinet minister is in violation of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution and set aside appointment of two Parliamentary Secretaries. The Calcutta High Court on June 2 last year quashed the appointment of 24 Parliamentary Secretaries in West Bengal dubbing it as unconstitutional. The High Court ruled that 7th Schedule (Article 246) demarcates Union, State and Concurrent lists. The State Government cannot create constitutional posts which is ultra vires to the Constitution. I am pretty much sure that Meghalaya High Court is abreast of these verdicts.
Last year when the AAP Government in Delhi appointed 23 Parliamentary Secretaries , predictably both Congress and BJP found it politically expedient to launch a tirade against Arvind Kejriwal. That’s double standard, to say the least. How could Congress and BJP conveniently forget the old adage that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others. Isn’t BJP guilty of appointing Political Secretaries in Arunachal after the dramatic political coup ? The least said about Congress the better. What the two national parties did not bargain for is that unlike in other States the Parliamentary Secretaries in Delhi receive no pay and allowances. Whether this will pass the test of law is a moot point.
Happily for me, today the issue has come a full circle. Palpably there is a wider appreciation of the need for dispensing with these unproductive posts. The writing on the wall is clear.