New Delhi, Aug 22 (IANS) A Trinamool Congress MP has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the amended office of profit act that exempts 45 positions from the purview of disqualification.

Dinesh Trivedi, who has filed this petition through counsel P.H. Parekh, sought a declaration that the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006, notified on Aug 18 - the same day on which President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam gave his assent, was unconstitutional.

The petitioner said that the impugned act was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. He said that as admitted in the statement of objects and reasons, the impugned act had been passed with retrospective effect solely to protect about 40 sittings MPs, who had been facing disqualification proceedings before the Election Commission.

He said that the bill was passed for the second time in undue haste without seriously addressing any of the concerns raised by the president in his message while returning the bill May 31.

Trivedi pointed out that in the past before an office of profit was exempted from the rigour of Article 102(1)(a) (disqualification for holding office of profit) the same was referred to a joint committee for its report on whether the office referred to was an office of profit and whether or not exemption should be granted. This statutory practice was not followed in the present case and it was given a complete go-by before the passing of the impugned law, according to the petition.

He submitted that before resorting to the wholesale exemption of the 45 offices of profit and that too with retrospective effect, the existing Joint Committee should have been asked to look into each one of the offices of profit in question as well as to consider the concerns expressed by the president.

He said that the act had been enacted in self-interest and not public interest and had nullified the objective and principle underlying the Article 102 (1) (a) of the constitution.

The petitioner sought a direction to declare the act as unconstitutional and void and an interim stay of its operation. In the alternative, he sought a direction to stay the retrospective operation of the act - that is, the impugned act would not affect the disqualification proceedings pending before the Election Commission.