BJP’s Jairam Thakur welcomes Himachal HC order on CPS



Desk |
Updated:
Nov 15, 2024 21:25 IST

Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) [India], November 15 (Desk): Welcoming the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision on the Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPS) case, Himachal Pradesh Leader of Opposition (LoP) and BJP leader Jairam Thakur on Friday stated that the BJP had consistently opposed the Congress government’s appointment of CPS in Himachal Pradesh after coming to power. He added that merely removing them is insufficient and called for their memberships to be terminated.
“We had been opposing the appointment of CPS in Himachal by the Congress government after they came to power. As per law, this could not have been done. This was the biggest violation of confidentiality. It took time, but the High Court has now given its ruling and scrapped their services. I welcome the decision of the High Court. But merely removing them is not a solution. Their membership should end. They fall under the category of Office of Profit and should be declared ineligible to contest elections for six years,” said Jairam Thakur.
In a landmark ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court declared the appointment of CPS under the Himachal Pradesh Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances, Powers, Privileges, and Amenities) Act, 2006, unconstitutional.

The decision mandates the immediate withdrawal of all CPS positions and associated privileges, effectively ceasing their functioning in the government.
The verdict was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Singh Negi, who ruled that the 2006 Act lacked constitutional validity.
According to the bench, “The Chief Parliamentary Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary’s appointment, salaries, allowances, powers, privileges, and amenities under the 2006 Act are void.”
The decision followed a legal challenge initiated by ten BJP MLAs, led by Satpal Sati, along with another individual. They argued that the appointments made under the 2006 Act violated constitutional provisions and bypassed procedural norms. (Desk)

Leave a Comment