NewKerala.com

HP Assembly Denies Pension to Disqualified MLAs in Anti-Defection Move

The Himachal Pradesh Assembly has passed a bill to deny pension benefits to legislators disqualified under the anti-defection law. The opposition, led by Jai Ram Thakur, criticized the move as an act of political vendetta that may not stand judicial scrutiny. Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu defended the legislation as a necessary step to uphold morality and curb defections in the state. The government clarified the provision would apply prospectively and is intended to plug a deterrent gap in the existing law.

Key Points: HP Passes Bill to Deny Pension to Disqualified MLAs

  • Bill amends 1971 Pension Act
  • Targets MLAs disqualified under anti-defection law
  • Opposition calls it "political vendetta"
  • Government says it's a "historic step"
  • Provision to apply prospectively
3 min read

HP Assembly passes bill to deny pension to disqualified MLAs amid heated exchanges

Himachal Pradesh Assembly passes bill to stop pension for MLAs disqualified under anti-defection law, sparking heated debate.

"This bill is not aimed at any individual... It is meant to uphold morality, honesty and transparency in public life. - Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu"

Shimla, April 2

The Himachal Pradesh Assembly has passed a bill to deny pension benefits to legislators disqualified under the anti-defection law, with the treasury and opposition benches engaging in sharp exchanges over its intent and legality.

The legislation, piloted by Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu on Wednesday, seeks to amend the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Allowances and Pension of Members) Act, 1971, to bar pension benefits for MLAs disqualified under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The bill was passed by voice vote.

Participating in the debate, Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur alleged that the amendment had been brought "with a sense of political vendetta" against those who had left the ruling party.

"This is being done with an objective of revenge... You should look into this case. This amendment will not stand in a court of law and will be a disgrace to this House. It should be withdrawn," he said, questioning both retrospective and prospective applicability.

BJP MLA Trilok Jamwal maintained that such a law "should only be prospective," citing past judicial precedents. Referring to earlier cases, he said courts had rejected similar actions in matters involving Krishna Mohini and Mohinder Nath Sofat.

Echoing concerns, BJP member Randheer Sharma cautioned the government, stating, "I have already alerted that this amendment has been brought out of political vendetta."

Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Harshwardhan Chauhan defended the move, calling it a historic step. "Such an incident has happened for the first time in the state. This has been brought to curb defections," he said, while also rejecting references to "Operation Lotus," saying there was no evidence to support such claims.

Revenue Minister Jagat Singh Negi took a dig at the opposition, saying, "The opposition is trying to justify defection. They should clearly state whether they are with the bill or against it."

Intervening in the debate, Chief Minister Sukhu launched a strong counterattack, stating that the people of the state had "witnessed the sale of democracy." "This bill is not aimed at any individual or political party. It is meant to uphold morality, honesty and transparency in public life," he said.

In a lighter moment that drew reactions in the House, Sukhu remarked that Jai Ram Thakur "should take medicine for blood pressure" as he appeared unusually agitated.

Clarifying the scope of the legislation, the Chief Minister said the provision would apply prospectively. "In the future, no one will be allowed to indulge in defection," he asserted, adding that recent political developments, including protests and court cases involving independent MLAs, had necessitated such a step.

The Speaker also referred to judicial observations and practices in Parliament, noting that the issue had been examined in light of Supreme Court directions and Lok Sabha precedents

The government maintained that the amendment was necessary to plug gaps in the existing law, which did not provide for any deterrent against defections, and reiterated that the move would not impose any additional financial burden on the state exchequer.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priyanka N
While the intent to curb defections is good, the opposition raises a valid legal point about retrospective application. The courts have struck down similar punitive measures before. The law must be clear, fair, and withstand judicial scrutiny.
A
Arun Y
Finally! Our tax money should not go to those who switch sides for power or money. They are public servants, not traders. This bill, if applied prospectively, is a good deterrent. Hope it passes the legal test.
S
Sarah B
The heated exchanges and personal remarks ("take medicine for blood pressure") show how charged this issue is. Beyond the political drama, the core question is about ethical governance. A step in the right direction, but the implementation must be just.
V
Vikram M
The opposition crying "vendetta" is rich. Weren't they in power recently? This is about principle. If you get disqualified for defection, a punishment should follow. Pension is a privilege for those who serve honestly, not a right for turncoats.
K
Kavya N
As a citizen, I'm tired of MLAs hopping parties. It makes a mockery of our vote. This bill hits them where it hurts - their wallet. Maybe now they'll think twice before selling their loyalty. Good move, CM Sukhu!

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50