English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Supreme Court clips the wings LG had sprouted, says has no independent powers

Published

on

Supreme Court clips the wings LG had sprouted, says has no independent powers

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Ruling that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is bound to act according to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all matters under its jurisdiction, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, July 4 set at rest the prolonged tussle over powers between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi that saw the latter revoking several decisions of the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government.

The Supreme Court Constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, however, stopped short of acknowledging total statehood for Delhi as demanded by the Aam Admi Party (AAP).

The judgment pronounced in the court by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also held that the LG cannot act as an “obstructionist”. Two other judges, Justices AK Sikri and AM Khanwilkar, concurred with the verdict.

The top court made it clear that except for anything related to land, police and public order, the Lt Governor has no independent decision-making powers under the constitution.

“The Lt Governor is an administrator in a limited sense and is not the Governor. He is bound by the advice of cabinet advice in matters other than those exempted,” the court said.

The court said: “The states should enjoy freedom without unsolicited interference from the centre…popular will cannot be allowed to lose its purpose.”

Adding muscle to the AAP dispensation, the court observed: “The NCT requires some kind of freedom, subject to the limitations imposed upon it. The Lt Governor works on the aid and advice of the council of ministers of the state. The Lt Governor must not act in a mechanical manner. The Lt Governor must work in accordance with the council of ministers.

“Our constitution is constructive in nature, with no room for autonomy,” said the bench.

The reasons listed by the bench were unambiguous. In its order the bench said the Lieutenant Governor cannot act mechanically by referring every Executive decision taken by the state’s council of ministers to the President of India. The court made it clear that while the LG enjoys the powers of an administrator, he must “work on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.”

The SC said: “All decisions of council of ministers must be communicated to the L-G, but that doesn’t mean concurrence of the L-G is required.”

The bench also observed that “A pragmatic orientation must be exhibited by the centre and the state.”

“There is no room for absolutism and there is no room for anarchism also,” the court said.

However, the bench drew the line at statehood. It said: “The NCT can never achieve the status of a state.”

Having said that, the court also added that the “Lt Governor has limited power, merely as that of an administrator.

About other nitty gritties, the  bench ordered: “The matter will be listed before the appropriate bench for further hearing as the bench has resolved the main issue.”

Earlier, Arvind Kejriwal and three of his cabinet colleagues staged a sit-in protest in the L-G office in June. They were protesting against an alleged delay in approval of key policies of the AAP government by L-G Anil Baijal and a “strike” by the civil servants. Kejriwal has launched a fresh “full statehood for Delhi” campaign with the objective of sending a petition to the Narendra Modi government after securing signatures of 10 lakh residents of the city.

The Delhi High Court had upheld the primacy of the Lieutenant Governor in Delhi in a 2016 ruling. The Kejriwal government moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court judgment. The Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the case in December last year. The impending judgment is likely to settle the dispute over separation of powers between the local elected government and the Centre.

The Kejriwal government fielded a galaxy of senior lawyers including P Chidambaram and Indira Jaising to present its case in the Supreme Court. Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh has argued for the Centre in the matter.

During the course of the hearing last year, the Supreme Court bench had once observed that it would restrict itself to examining the status of the national capital under the Constitution and lay down a set of principles to govern Delhi. It had refused to get into the issues arising out of Delhi government’s decisions and notifications related to regularisation of guest teachers and AAP’s pet programme mohalla clinics.

Reactions:

The judgment came as a major victory for Kejriwal and AAP who have been, for the past three years, engaged in a bitter battle with the LG office and the Centre, alleging that successive Lieutenant Governors (first Najeeb Jung and now Baijal) had been creating roadblocks in the functioning of the state’s executive under instructions from the Narendra Modi-led NDA government at the Centre.

Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal hailed this as a “big victory for the people of Delhi” and a “big victory for democracy.”

The BJP and Congress, which have been talking about limited powers of elected government in Delhi and the supremacy of LG, tried to claim the SC verdict justified their stand.

While the SC order cited Constituional provisions to restrict the LG’s authority, BJP’s Delhi unit chief Manoj Tiwari chose to target Arvind Kejriwal saying that he can longer rule in anarchy. “Start following the constitution and work for the betterment of Delhiites,” he wrote on Twitter.

BJP spokesperson Nalin Kohli also slammed AAP for terming SC verdict as a “victory” for their party. Adding that the main demand if statehood has been rejected by the Centre, Kohli said, “Don’t understand how Delhi govt is claiming this to be a victory? Their main plank was that this is a state whereas Court has unequivocally said its not a state. They said they had exclusive executive control that was rejected too. This is a UT, Centre has a role to play.”

“We welcome the SC verdict. The Delhi government should have been following the law even without the order of the court. We hope, they will do so after the judgement,” BJP MLA and Leader of Opposition in the Delhi Assembly Vijender Gupta said.

Delhi BJP spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor said the verdict has “decided” that Delhi is a Union Territory and the AAP should stop raising their “political demand” for full statehood to the city. “It is now decided that Delhi is a UT. So, the AAP and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal should stop raising the full statehood demand.”

Former chief minister of Delhi Sheila Dixit said what the Supreme Court has done is to reiterate the role of LG and Delhi government.[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_column_text]“As per Article 239 (AA) of the Constitution, Delhi is not a state, it is a Union Territory. If Delhi Government and LG don’t work together then Delhi will face problems. Congress ruled Delhi for 15 years, no conflict took place then,” ANI quoted Dikshit.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com