Delhi govt think tank vice-chief issue with Prez; don’t pre-judge case, LG tells HC

Jasmine Shah, who headed DDCD, a policy think tank of the AAP government, had moved court challenging the sealing of his office on November 17, 2022 by SDM Civil Lines, following an order from the Delhi government planning department to restrict him and prevent access to his office

The Delhi lieutenant governor (LG) on Wednesday submitted before the Delhi high court that it should wait for the President’s decision before giving a verdict on the removal of Jasmine Shah from the post of vice-chairperson of the Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi (DDCD).

Delhi LG VK Saxena. (PTI)

Earlier this year, the LG had told the court that due to differences in opinion between him and the Delhi government over the removal of Shah has been referred to the President on November 30.

Shah, who headed DDCD, a policy think tank of the AAP government, had moved court challenging the sealing of his office on November 17, 2022 by SDM Civil Lines, following an order from the Delhi government planning department to restrict him and prevent access to his office. DDCD offices were subsequently sealed on the night of November 17 last year to prevent its alleged “misuse by Shah for political gains”. The sealing exercise was undertaken by the planning department of the Delhi government.

Justice Prathiba M Singh noted the LG’s submission and adjourned Shah’s challenge to his removal for July 11.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Sanjay Jain, representing the LG, also told the court that a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is yet to decide on a tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre over who controls services in the national capital. He submitted that the high court should also wait for the outcome of the apex court’s judgment as it would have a bearing on Shah’s plea.

Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan, Shah’s counsel, opposed Jain’s submission, and argued that the matter does not fall within the purview of services and thus, there is no need for the court to wait for the judgment of the Constitution bench.

It was alleged that Shah, who held the rank of a minister, misused his office by joining TV debates as a spokesperson for the Aam Aadmi Party. Shah, however, has contended that he is not a “civil servant” or holding a “civil post”, and therefore he has no obligation to remain politically neutral.

He had also argued in his petition that he was not entrusted with the responsibilities, duties or functions which would involve the exercise of executive, administrative or judicial powers of the State or authority in the name of or on behalf of the Delhi government such as sanctioning of the budget for the DDCD, appointment of staff or payment of salaries and he, therefore, does not have a master servant relationship with the government.