Kejriwal-Jung tiff: SC issues notice to govt over HC order on MHA notification

In a setback to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Delhi, the Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to it on the Delhi High Court order criticising the notification by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). [caption id=“attachment_2269252” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Supreme Court issued notice to the AAP government on the Delhi HC order on the MHA notification. AFP[/caption] The Supreme Court asked the Delhi government to reply in three weeks on the Centre’s plea for a stay of the high court order holding its notification limiting power of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) as ‘suspect’. Clarifying that there is no stay on observations made by the Delhi High Court single judge in the May 25 judgement, a vacation bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and UU Lalit said, “we are not inclined to go into the issue of stay at this stage and after getting the reply, we will look into it.” The apex court also issued a notice to the Delhi government on Centre’s appeal against the hight court order allowing ACB to take action against bureaucrats. The Delhi government has been asked to reply on this order within 6 weeks. It also asked the high court to proceed on the Delhi government’s fresh petition independently without being influenced by observations made in the 25 May verdict. The court also said that the Delhi High Court order criticising the MHA notification created uncertainty about the equation between the Delhi government and the Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Najeeb Jung, accoding to CNN-IBN. At the outset, the apex court bench said that it is up to the Delhi government to decide whether they want to pursue the matter in the Supreme Court or the High Court as the issues are related to Centre’s notification. The bench also suggested that the matters from High Court be transferred to the apex court. “Let it be decided for once and all by the final court,” the bench said. Meanwhile, Home Minister Rajnath Singh reacted to the Kejriwal-Jung row and said, “We don’t want to run Delhi government through anyone but upholding Constitutional provisions is our responsibility.” AAP leader Somnath Bharti, who had moved the resolution against the MHA notification in the Delhi Assembly, called the Supreme Court order a “setback for the people of Delhi, not the AAP government.” The row between the Centre and the Delhi government had intensified with the former challenging the Delhi High Court’s order that termed a notification of Union Home Ministry barring the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) from acting against its officials ‘suspect’. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the registry of the apex court on Wednesday evening challenging the 25 May order of the High Court, which was hearing the bail application of a Delhi Police constable arrested by the ACB of Delhi government on bribery charges. In its petition before the Supreme Court, Centre has said that the observations made by the High Court led to uncertainty and made everyday administration in the national capital difficult. It has said that there was a need for clear interpretation of Article 239 AA of the Constitution in balance of equation between the Delhi government and the LG. The Centre also sought stay of the High Court judgement saying it was delivered without hearing it and listed nine grounds for setting it aside including that it “upsets the delicate constitutional balance for governance of Delhi and that too without an opportunity of hearing being given to the Union of India”. Among the other grounds raised, the Ministry of Home Affairs has said the HC single judge erred in adjudicating the issue regarding the competence of the ACB of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to act on the complaint in the present case without issuing it notice and hearing submission of Union of India. The petition said that the High Court failed to comply with the fundamental norm of natural justice - the right to be heard and despite recording that “this is an important constitutional issue which has a bearing on the executive authority of the Union” and the “issue cannot be finally determined without hearing the union and examining its stand”, the single judge did not hear it. The Centre has also said the judge has recorded that the issue is pending before another bench but preferred to go ahead with it without referring it to the bench already seized of the issue. Assailing the high court judgement, it said that under Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, the legislative assembly of Delhi is vested with the powers only in so far as such matter is applicable to the Union Territory and not otherwise. Further, the petition has said the constitution status of the NCTD is not the same as that of a state and it is a centrally administered territory of the Union under Schedule 1, Part II and its legislative and executive powers are restricted constitutionally. It has said questions of law of general public importance arise in the facts and circumstances of the case including whether it is entitled to be heard wherein “a notification issued by it is contended to be invalid by a party to the proceedings”. On 25 May, while making a remark on the MHA notification, Justice Vipin Sanghi of the Delhi High Court had said, “In my view, since the Union lacks the executive authority to act in respect of matters dealt with in Entries 1 & 2 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, the further executive fiat issued by the Union Government on May 21, 2015 is also suspect.” The order came on a day when Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had taken to the streets and was holding an ‘open cabinet meeting’ in central Delhi against the alleged oppressive measures being used by the Centre to curtail powers of the Delhi government. The AAP government in Delhi and the Lt Governor have been involved in a public spat over his powers vis-a-vis an elected government. The Centre had on 21 May issued its notification siding with the Lt Governor. (With inputs from PTI)