THE PRESIDENT SENDS KEY UPA LEGISLATION BACK TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 003799 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/19/2016 TAGS: PGOV PINR KDEM IN SUBJECT: THE PRESIDENT SENDS KEY UPA LEGISLATION BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD REF: A. NEW DELHI 3583 ¶B. NEW DELHI 3478 Classified By: Acting PolCouns Atul Keshap for reasons 1.4 (B,D) ¶1. (C) Summary: Although Parliament passed the "office of Profit Bill" on May 17 in a special session of Parliament, the President refused to sign it and sent it back for parliamentary reconsideration on May 30. The President is apparently concerned that the Bill could be inherently unconstitutional and would not pass Supreme Court review. Although Congress is downplaying the significance of the development, it is a setback for the UPA. When it is reintroduced in the next session of Parliament, the Bill will provide a major target of opportunity for the opposition and all but ensure another stormy and inconclusive session. Congress has again demonstrated its weak management of the legislative process. End Summary. The President Moves Decisively -------------- ¶2. (U) In a surprise development, President Abdul Kalam on May 30 refused to sign the "Office of Profit Bill" passed by a special session of Parliament on May 17. Saying that he had conferred with numerous experts and read the Bill closely, the President asked Parliament to reconsider the measure in light of a number of concerns. According to the press, he objected to provisions of the Bill backdating its application to 1959 so as to ensure that no MP would be required to resign. There are several petitions for disqualification pending against prominent MPs holding "offices of profit" and the President wondered whether it would be fair to tailor a bill that allowed them to stay on. The President also questioned whether Parliament had used "fair and reasonable" criteria to identify "offices of profit" that could be applied throughout the country "in a clear and transparent manner." The Cabinet must first examine the President's concerns and then submit the Bill for consideration in the next session of Parliament, expected to convene in late July. But Congress Plays it Down -------------- ¶3. (U) Although the President's move was widely analyzed in the press as an "embarrassment" for the UPA, party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi downplayed the matter. He insisted that the Bill, as written, was not unconstitutional and that the UPA would address the President's concerns and quickly convince him of its validity. Singhvi confirmed that the UPA will reintroduce the measure in the Monsoon Session of Parliament. Many Communist MPs currently hold offices of profit and the Left Front was quick to support the Bill. Forgetting the BJP's vociferous opposition, CPI Parliamentary Leader Gurudas Dasgupta predicted that it "will be passed unanimously" next time it comes up for a vote. The President Was Troubled -------------- ¶4. (C) Our contacts tell us that the President was swayed by a number of fact/rs. The BJP, which had boycotted the vote on the Bill, presented strong arguments concerning the manner in which the legislation was drafted and passed. The President was said to agree with opponents who stated that the legislation was railroaded through Parliament and that the Bill was poorly drafted, patchy, inconsistent, and needed NEW DELHI 00003799 002 OF 002 more work. The President purportedly worried that as drafted, the Bill could allow MPs to hold any number of paying positions, which he felt was clearly against the intent of the Constitution and could compel the Supreme Court to reject the measure as unconstitutional. The President also found that the Bill's provision making it retroactive to 1959 and excusing all MPs who held "offices of profit" during this period from prosecution or legal consequences, was a serious problem. Comment: Yet Another Domestic Political Liability -------------- -------------- ¶5. (C) Although Congress is trying to put the best possible face on this development, it was a significant embarrassment for the UPA and for Sonia Gandhi in particular. Congress only introduced the legislation after she was herself publicly criticized for holding "positions of profit," after she had cited such a position to secure the ouster of opposition MP Jaya Bachan in March. The Bill's reintroduction in the next session of Parliament will provide the opposition BJP with a ready-made issue and all but ensures another stormy and unproductive session. By failing to draft a Bill that would stand up to legal challenges and then ramming it through Parliament over the objections of the opposition, Congress has again demonstrated its poor handling of Legislative Affairs. This could become even more apparent when it is forced to defend its Bill against a concerted opposition attack in Parliament in July. Meanwhile, much needed economic legislation (Ref B) remains stalled. ¶6. (U) Visit New Delhi's Classified Website: (http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/sa/newdelhi/) MULFORD