The court also ruled that the Council of Ministers must confer with the LG before taking key decisions. The order also meant quashing of a few high-profile probes set up by the AAP administration. According to reports, the party will challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
Expressing “dissatisfaction” over the High Court judgment, Delhi’s Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia stated: “We respectfully disagree with the High Court verdict... Today, a huge challenge has been posed before democracy. Who will matter in democracy? Those ‘elected by the people’ or the selected ones?”
Addressing the media at the Delhi Secretariat, he added: “People sent us to power to control corruption in power distribution companies, to check commission-system in transfer posting of officials… Without any power, how can we meet the demand of people of Delhi.” Claiming that the HC verdict “poses a question on Democracy”, he said: “When ‘we the people’ chose a government, do they have any value? Do people have any right? Where the people of Delhi will go? When they have chosen their MLAs? Will they go to LG or Delhi government,” he asked. Sisodia said unlike the media hype that this is a LG vs Kejriwal fight, “this is about who will rule whether ‘we the people’ or some selected people.”
He further added: “If Delhi is Union Territory, it can be run like Chandigarh. Why do we have the Delhi Legislative Assembly? Why do we spend public money to elect MLAs? Why we expend money in electing MLAs?”
Contending that there was a “big difference” between any other Union Territory (UT) and the national Capital, Sisodia alleged that on the “pretext of rules”, various decisions aimed at curbing corruption have been stalled.
In AAP’s view, if LG is given supremacy in all the subjects, the very motive of 69th Amendment of the Constitution to prove legislature in Delhi is defeated.
“In Transaction of Business Rules (TBR) 1993, the office of LG and the Delhi government are defined separately. Similarly, Right to Education Act passed in 2009 also differentiates Delhi with other UTs and defines Delhi as ‘UT with Legislature’,” argued Sisodia.
In the 194-page judgment, a double Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath said the LG has the final powers on constituting Commission of Enquiries, ACB, transfer and posting of top bureaucrats and approving all decisions of the elected government including those which are under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Legislative Assembly.
“It is mandatory under the Constitutional scheme to communicate the decision of the Council of Ministers to the LG even in relation to the matters in respect of which power to make laws has been conferred on the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi,” said the court disposing of a bunch of petitions related to power sharing between the Union and the Delhi government.
“An order thereon can be issued only where the LG does not take a different view and no reference to the Central government is required,” added the judgment.
“We respect Delhi HC judgement, but we don’t agree with it. The Constitution gives us the right to appeal against it,” he said.
“Since 1993, Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) was under the Delhi government — five years under BJP and 15 years under Congress. ACB was put under LG’s Office only after the AAP government took action against a police personnel who was caught red-handed while taking bribe,” alleged Sisodia. Echoing similar thoughts, Delhi Home Minister Satyendar Jain said that the Kejriwal government has been prevented by the Centre from taking any action against corruption since it was formed.
AAP leader Raghav Chadha said: “A democratically elected government cannot be undermined. This isn’t a fight for supremacy, but democracy”.
Earlier in a press conference, LG Najeeb Jung said that his office is always ready to cooperate with the government. Jung said: “Of course we report to the Central government but it’s wrong to say we work against the Delhi government.”
Beneficiaries of the Judgment
Commission of Inquiry on Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) Scam
Case against Finance Minister Arun Jaitley: The commission was assigned to investigate into a series of corruption allegations on DDCA including construction of Feroz Shah Kotla Stadium, where Arun Jaitley was the president of the association from 1999 to 2013.
Commission of Inquiry on CNG Fitness Scam
Case against Sheila Dikshit: In the Rs 100 crore scam during Sheila Dikshit’s regime in 2002, the AAP also ordered ACB probe into the Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung’s role in closing the case. It was after this order that ACB was put under LG’s office through a notification of the MHA on May 21, 2015.
Case against Mukesh Ambani (industrialist) and Mukesh Kumar Meena, Joint Police Commissioner and ACB chief: During his 49-day government, Kejriwal had lodged FIR with the ACB against Mukesh Ambani for conspiring to hike CNG prices in Delhi. The AAP government had also lodged a case against Meena on “curtain purchase scam” when he was posted as Chief of Police Training School in Delhi. Besides direct protection to these two personalities, the verdict gives immunity to all the Union government officers, ministers and MPs also.
Direction of Delhi’s power minister to fine Discoms on undue power outages and compensate users: Anil Ambani’s two companies – BSES Yamuna and BSES Rajdhani – are the real beneficiaries of this provision.
Chief Minister appointed directors in Discoms without LG’s approval: Anil Ambani’s two companies BSES Yamuna and BSES Rajdhani are reaping benefits of this provision as around Rs 8,000 crore scam was reportedly discovered by CAG.