E-Paper
‘Raises doubts about your bona fides’: Delhi High Court raps AAP government over CAG report
A single-judge bench led by Justice Sachin Datta said the government “dragged its feet” to prevent the assembly session from taking place.
Delhi High Court on Monday reprimanded the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Delhi government for mishandling the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report, saying, “The way you have dragged your feet raises doubts about your bona fides.”
A single-judge bench led by Justice Sachin Datta said the government “dragged its feet” to prevent the assembly session from taking place.
“The way you have dragged your feet raises doubts about your bona fides. You should have promptly forwarded the reports to the Speaker and initiated a discussion in the House. The timeline is clear, you have dragged your feet to prevent the session from happening,” the court said.
In reply, the Delhi government questioned how sessions could be held with elections coming up.
Read: ‘Intoxicated with power’: BJP, Congress slam AAP over CAG report
At the last hearing, the Delhi Assembly Secretariat told the court that tabling the CAG reports on city administration in the assembly wouldn’t serve any purpose since the assembly's term ends in February.
This was in response to a petition by seven BJP MLAs about tabling the reports in the assembly.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court asked the Delhi government, the Speaker, and other involved parties to respond to a petition from BJP MLAs asking for a special session to present 14 CAG reports.
The Delhi government told the court that all 14 reports had been sent to the Speaker.
Vijender Gupta, the lawyer for the BJP MLAs, argued that as a member of the House, he had the right to receive and debate the reports.
He urged the court to direct the Speaker to call a special session. However, the court said it could not give an immediate order to the Speaker and that both sides would need to be heard before a decision could be made.
The Delhi government opposed the petition, calling it politically motivated, and said it planned to file a counter-affidavit. Gupta’s lawyer argued that the issue wasn’t political but about ensuring government accountability and should be resolved before the election announcements.
