Five key points of the Delhi HC verdict on Kejriwal-Jung tussle
The AAP government in the national capital got a shot in the arm in its ongoing tussle with Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung when the Delhi High Court ruled that the L-G is bound to act on the advice of the council of ministers.delhi Updated: May 26, 2015 13:43 IST
The AAP government in the national capital got a shot in the arm in its ongoing tussle with Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung when the Delhi High Court ruled that the L-G is bound to act on the advice of the council of ministers.
The court's ruling, given in response to an appeal filed by a policeman who was arrested by the city's Anti-Corruption Bureau, has given a fresh twist to the row between Jung and chief minister Arvind Kejriwal.
The verdict came days after a Union home ministry notification stripped Kejriwal of his right to be consulted by the Lieutenant Governor on issues concerning police and public order.
Here are five key points made in Monday's judgement by Justice Vipin Sanghi:
1) In matters that fall within the legislative competence of Delhi's legislative assembly, or in which the Lieutenant Governor is not required by law to act in his discretion or exercise his judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the Lieutenant Governor "must act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers".
2) The National Capital Territory of Delhi shall not be administered by the President through the Lieutenant Governor in matters over which the legislative assembly has authority to make laws.
3) The "mandate of the people, with whom the sovereign power resides, must be respected by the Lieutenant Governor" in matters that fall within the domain of the legislative assembly, provided there is no other constitutional or legal fetter.
4) The legislative assembly is empowered to make laws in respect of matters included in the concurrent list of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In respect of criminal law and criminal procedure of the Concurrent List, the Lieutenant Governor cannot act in his discretion and is bound to act on the advice of the council of ministers.
5) Justice Sanghi ruled that the Union government could not have issued the notification seeking to restrict the executive authority of the Delhi government acting through its Anti-Corruption Bureau. "By an executive fiat, the Union government could not have exercised the executive power in respect of a matter falling within the legislative competence of the Legislative Assembly…," the order said.