Sir, the hon. Minister has said that because this Bill is of a complicated nature, he has come forward with this measure to extend the blanket cover that is to be given by another one year. Sir, in my opinion, the Bill as such is not complicated, but the Government have made it more complicated by getting into certain things which, in my opinion, are certainly extraneous for the purpose of this Bill. Sir, in the course of one year this Bill has come up before this House three times. This is the third time that this Bill is coming up before the House. The Parent Bill was introduced in December 2003 and in less than one year two amending Bills were being moved before us. Even at the time when the parent Bill was moved, it was suggested by several Members, both on this side as well as on the other side of the House, that it is safe to enumerate in the Bill itself by attaching a schedule to it, to specify clearly, provisions as to what would amount to an office of profit and what would not amount to an office of profit. It was then stated by the then hon. mover of the Bill that it was not necessary to attach any schedule to the Bill, and that the Bill by itself, as moved, was comprehensive enough. Then, Sir, certain difficulties were felt, and various Members of this House as well as of the other House had addressed the hon. Law Minister then, asking him whether their remaining in a particular committee would amount to an office of profit or not. Probably, looking at the numerous letters that had been addressed to the hon. Law Minister, he was in a dilemma as to what to do. He had come forward with an amending Bill to extend the life till the end of December 2004. A committee was constituted to advise the hon. Law Minister as to which offices would amount to offices of profit and which offices would not amount to offices of profit. Sir, I am told by one or two members who had served in that Advisory Committee that only once, only during this session, they were summoned to meet. I would ask the hon. Minister, sir, this question: When it was such an important measure, what was the Ministry doing from April 2004 till December 2004 excepting to come forward before the House with another amending Bill of this nature? Originally, Sir, only four months’ time was asked for, when the parent Bill was moved, and it was stated that within that period of four months they would come forward with a comprehensive legislation. Then again, they came forward with another amending Bill, extending the period till December 2004. Now, between April and December nothing has happened excepting that the Advisory Committee has been constituted, and it met once only just to recommend for extending the period by another one year. Sir, nobody, in both the Houses would oppose this measure, but they can only criticize the way in which the Government is dealing with this measure, the way in which the Government is sleeping over the matter, a matter which affects the very life of a Member of Parliament not only a Member of Parliament, but also a Member of the State Legislature. As the hon. The Law Minister has pointed out article 102 of our Constitution does not define what is an office of profit except to say that a Ministership or a Deputy Ministership or even a Parliamentary Secretaryship and by a later amendment, even a whip of the Congress Party would not amount to an office of profit. Only a few instances are specified as to which offices would not amount to an office of profit. Then, Sir, complications had arisen even when the original Bill was moved introducing statutory committees and advisory committees. What a statutory committee was, or what an advisory committee was, was not at all defined in the parent Bill. So, doubts had arisen in the minds of various Members as to what would amount to a statutory committee or what would amount to an advisory committee or even whether a Vice-Chancellorship of a University, to which are attached certain privileges like the appointment of so many persons and all that, was defined as not an office of profit, and the hon. The Law Minister was not able to say what office would amount to an office of profit, what would amount to a statutory committee or what would amount to an advisory committee. Sir, I have only to point out that an important measure such as this which affects the very existence of the Members of Parliament should have been given a very high priority in the matter of legislation. On the contrary, not much attention was given to this. The Committee met only once and even then nothing seems to have happened in that Committee. Sir, before the matter goes to a court of law for the Judges and for the lawyers to interpret what would amount to an office of profit, it is better that the hon. The Law Minister brings forward in the coming Budget session a comprehensive Bill which will specify in its schedules what are offices of profit. The schedules may be of a positive character or of a negative character. The schedules might say that the holders of such and such offices would not be disqualified from being Members of Parliament or Members of State Legislatures, or the schedules might say, in a negative way, that such and such offices are offices of profit, so that the Members of Parliament and Members of the State Legislatures would know whether to accept an office and whether they would be disqualified by accepting a certain office. Submit