LG reply sought on plea questioning choice of lawyers

The Delhi government has challenged the LG’s July 23 order by which he has invoked the proviso to Article 239-AA(4) of the Constitution to refer to the President the matter of appointment of Delhi Police’s chosen advocates as SPPs in cases related to the farmers’ agitation and February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi.

The Delhi high court on Friday asked Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) Anil Baijal to respond to a plea by the Delhi government challenging his decision to allow lawyers chosen by the police to argue as special public prosecutors (SPP) in cases related to the Republic Day violence and the north-east Delhi riots.

Delhi L-G Anil Baijal. (HT file)

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rahul Mehra, representing the Delhi government, said the LG can use his powers and refer a matter to the President for overriding their decision only in exceptional cases to protect the national interest and not in routine matters.

Pointing to a serious conflict of interest, the government said that investigating agency can’t be allowed to appoint lawyers arguing its own cases. “SPPs appointed by us are independent persons. You can’t have SPPs which are part of the investigating arm, that is, Delhi Police,” Singhvi argued.

A bench of chief justice DN Patel and Jyoti Singh issued notice and asked the LG to respond to the government’s petition, and an application seeking stay on the decision to appoint SPPs on the grounds that it will not be in the interest of “fair trial”. The matter was listed for further hearing on October 21.

The Delhi government has challenged the LG’s July 23 order by which he has invoked the proviso to Article 239-AA(4) of the Constitution to refer to the President the matter of appointment of Delhi Police’s chosen advocates as SPPs in cases related to the farmers’ agitation and February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi. The decision of the President is pending in the matter.

The LG did not endorse the Delhi cabinet decision of July 16 that a panel of government-appointed prosecutors will deal with the cases, leading to another flashpoint in the ongoing tussle between the elected government in Delhi and the Centre-appointed LG on administrative control over several matters.

The petition has also challenged the July 26 notification appointing the SPPs to conduct the cases and also the Centre’s August 4 order endorsing the LG’s view and approving the appointments. It contended that the appointment is contrary to established legal principles and violates the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.

Singhvi argued that the LG has been routinely interfering in the appointment of SPPs and undermining the elected government and added that repeated invocation of reference power is wrong.

Announcing the cabinet’s decision on July 16, deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia said, “It is unfortunate that the central government is intervening in routine affairs of Delhi’s governance through the LG . Appointing prosecutors in Delhi comes under the elected government’s domain, going by Supreme Court’s directions. The LG, however, has a veto power which can be used in rarest of the rare cases. Such routine use of the veto power is unconstitutional, anti-democratic and goes against the spirit of Supreme Court’s directions.”

An official in the LG’s office reacted to the statement saying the matter pertained to the violence, and disrespect to the national flag on January 26 and not to the farmer protest. “It has nothing to do with ‘farmers protest’ as is being deliberately made out. Individuals with predetermined agenda and vested interests deliberately carried out acts on January 26, 2021 in full media presence that were not only an affront to national morale but aimed at bringing shame to India internationally.”