Ordinance on Convicted Law Makers finally withdrawn.

 A good decision arrived from the government but certainly not in a pleasant way. The government has ultimately decided to withdraw the controversial ordinance that protects convicted parliamentarians. The reversal of policy was cleared at a short cabinet meeting chaired by the Prime Minister. The government also decided to withdraw the bill it had moved on convicted lawmakers in the parliament.

         The entire sequence of events was triggered by a Supreme Court (SC) decision that declared as null and void Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act that excluded from disqualification sitting lawmakers even after being convicted of crimes that would have made ordinary citizens ineligible to contest elections. The government moved to amend the SC order, claiming a political consensus on the issue, something that the BJP now says is not true.

       The government moved a Bill that would have prevented immediate disqualification provided the convicted lawmaker had moved an appellate court and the court had stayed the conviction and sentence.

       As a middle path, the Bill proposed that they would not have voting rights and a salary while the appeal was pending. Subsequently to deal with the impending conviction of two lawmakers — Congress’s Rashid Masood and RJD leader Lalu Prasad — the Cabinet approved an ordinance for the same.

       The government move was widely criticised and was not taken lightly by the public who was already tired of the falling standards of public life. Reading the public mood, the BJP declared its opposition to the government move, and several Congress leaders too voiced their concerns.

       Later the president sought a clarification on the issue and reportedly questioned the urgency and necessity of the move.

Serious Coordination Problem??

The very next day Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi came out rather aggressively and termed the ordinance as "complete nonsense" that should be "torn and thrown out". The cause was undoubtedly correct as a person who has been convicted by the court and sent to prison is in fact a criminal. A criminal by any mean is not eligible to be a parliamentarian and to make laws for the country. But unfortunately Mr. Gandhi chose the wrong way; he should have settled this matter in person rather than publicly criticizing the ordinance and by it in a way doing so to the prime minister. These kind of acts decrease the dignity of the prime minister especially his international standing. It left me with extreme anguish that Dr. Singh's Pakistani counterpart said some disgraceful words regarding the Indian's position in the government. However the reality is quite much reversed, the Paki has no control over the situations there in true sense. This act of Mr. Gandhi gave another chance to the Time magazine to put on a caustic remark on Indian politics, the magazine quotes "India’s Prime Minister and ‘Crown Prince’ Have an Awkward Spat". These kinds of acts should be avoided that causes a harm to the dignity of the country's top executive.

Anyways the decision finally taken by the government is more than correct in my personal opinion. A person who has been convicted by a court of law should be immediately debarred from the parliament and should not be allowed to contest election unless and until he gets acquitted by a higher court.