PIL In Supreme Court To Sack Delhi Health Minister Satyendar Jain & Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik Over Alleged Money Laundering

The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks to ensure that any Minister, who is not only a public servant under Section 21 of Indian Penal Code and Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but also a "Law Maker" and takes constitutional oath under Schedule-3, shall be temporarily debarred from holding the office, after 2 days in judicial custody.

This petition has been filed by Advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay through Advocate Ashwini Kumar Dubey.

Satyendar Jain was arrested on May 31 in cases of black money, benami properties, ghost companies, money laundering and disproportionate assets. He is currently in judicial custody.

At the same time, cabinet minister Nawab Malik was arrested on February 23, 2022 in cases of black money, benami properties, money laundering and disproportionate assets related to Dawood Ibrahim. Malik is also in judicial custody.

Alternatively, it prays that being the custodian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court should direct the Law Commission to examine election laws of developed countries and prepare a comprehensive report to maintain nobility & dignity of Ministers, Legislators and Public Servants in spirit of Article 14.

The petition also states that unlike public servants, Ministers like Nawab Malik and Satyendar Jain are still enjoying constitutional position, even while being in judicial custody for long time, which is arbitrary and contrary to Article 14.

The petition further submits that a MLA or MP has to be present in the House on all days of its sitting. Restriction on him from absence from the House is to the extent that he has to seek leave of Speaker for his absence. Not only this, he can be disqualified, if he absents from sitting for 60 days. Besides being required to be present in all sittings of House, he also spends time to participate in the Standing Committees of which he may be selected as member. The MPs are also responsible for developmental work in his Constituency for which he is allocated a sum of Rs.5 crore per year under MPLAD scheme. He has not only to initiate bill but also ensure through his supervision the implementation of the same. He has to adopt one undeveloped village every year under the Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojana and develop it.

Thus, it is argued that prolonged absence due to remand should be considered a reason to sack them.

It pointes that Article 102 states that a MP can be disqualified if he holds an "Office of Profit". He can also be disqualified if he quits his party or defects to another party after being elected as MP under the 10th Schedule. Under Article 101, if an MP is absent from the meetings for more than 60 days without permission, his seat may be declared vacant. Under Article 104, if an MP sits or votes in Parliament without taking oath, he shall be liable to pay a fine of up to Rs 500 per day.

However, there is no provision either in the Constitution or in the Rules of Procedure to measure the performance of MPs, the plea states. "The Supreme Court is entitled to evolve the New Principles of Liability to make the guaranteed remedy to enforce fundamental rights real and effective, to do complete justice to aggrieved person," the plea says.