Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing of plea against Kejriwal’s sit-in

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, June 19

The controversy surrounding the AAP government’s tussle with the National Capital Territory’s Lieutenant Governor on Tuesday reached the Supreme Court with a petition seeking to declare Arvind Kejriwal Cabinet’s sit-in protest illegal and unconstitutional.

Contending that a constitutional crisis had been created due to “the unconstitutional and illegal” protest by Chief Minister Kejriwal and his ministers inside the LG Anil Baijal’s office, petitioner Hari Nath Ram wanted urgent intervention of the top court.

However, a Vacation Bench headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer declined to take it up immediately and posted it for hearing after summer vacation.

The tussle for power between the AAP Government and LG as the Centre’s representative is mainly because of Delhi’s unique position as a Union Territory with an elected government which doesn’t enjoy much power over important agencies and has hardly any say on important issues.

A Five-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra—which reserved its verdict in December 2017 on issues relating to tussle for power between the elected government and the LG in Delhi—is expected to pronounce it in July.

The latest round of the tussle started on June 11 when Kejriwal and his ministers entered the LG’s office and began a sit-in protest to press for their demands, including a direction to IAS officers to end their “strike” and action against those who went on strike.  

Both LG’s office and IAS officers’ Association have denied that officers were on strike.

“Citizens are left high and dry,” petitioner’s counsel Shashank Sudhi told the Bench, which also included Justice Indu Malhotra.

The Delhi High Court had heard petitions on the issue on Monday and posted them for further hearing on June 22, Sudhi said, contending Delhi was facing an “emergency situation” as citizens were confronting severe water crisis. Disapproving of the sit-in by Delhi ministers in the LG’s office, the high court had sought to know who authorised such a protest. 

As the petitioner’s counsel insisted on urgent hearing, the Bench simply said, “We will list it on reopening of the court.”

The petitioner also demanded perjury proceedings against either the Chief Minister or the office of the LG, alleging one of them was lying.