There are occasions that demand a return to fundamentals and also to a reiteration of the purity of principles. The can of worms that has been opened up because of the controversy over office of profit is such an occasion. It has been argued, including by The Telegraph, that the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 should be reviewed and that parliament should work out in a precise manner what positions legislators will be allowed to hold without the threat of disqualification hanging over them. But the nature of the controversy and its ramifications may call for a more radical review of the act than was previously recommended. The word radical is used advisedly in its original sense of affecting the fundamental nature of a thing. Members of parliament are elected to make laws. This is their principal function and should, in fact become their only function. The doctrine of the separation of powers should support such a purist definition of the legislators? functions. The Constitution of India is somewhat ambiguous on the separation of powers. The founding fathers made it clear that on the matter of this doctrine they were departing from the constitution of the United States of America. It is this ambiguity that has permitted legislators to hold other offices. In fact, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act was formulated to preserve the purity of the legislature. But the act did not strike at the root of the problem. Instead, it allowed parliament to make exemptions for certain offices without actually clarifying the terms and conditions. Confusion thus became worse confounded.

The time has perhaps come to go back to the drawing board. In the process of re-looking at the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, a case can be made to do away with it altogether. The process should be premised on legislators remaining only legislators, and should look forward to a review of the Constitution?s position on the separation of powers. The position that members of parliament and of the legislative assemblies should only be law-makers and be forbidden from accepting any other office follows from a very unpleasant but undeniable aspect of the Indian reality. It is through accepting offices that MPs and MLAs begin to abuse their position. It opens up spaces for corruption and patronage. These can only hinder the task of law-making which is an MP?s or an MLA?s primary function.

To prevent abuse, to avoid confusion and to stop exemption and disqualification from becoming political weapons, law-making should be the only function of legislators. This might appear too drastic but is the only solution based on principles and not expediency. The chink in the argument is that legislators become ministers. This is one reason why the Constitution?s stand on the separation of powers needs to be looked at afresh.