New Delhi: The Supreme Court will on Friday hear Centre’s plea challenging Delhi High Court order terming as “suspect” its notification barring Delhi government’s anti-corruption branch (ACB) from acting against its officers in criminal offences, and holding that the LG cannot act in his discretion.
The Centre’s petition was mentioned before a vacation bench, comprising Justices A K Sikri and U U Lalit, by Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, who said that the observations made by the High Court led to total uncertainty and made everyday administration of national capital difficult.
He said that there was a need for clear interpretation of Article 239 AA of the Constitution in the balance of equation between the Delhi government and the Lt Governor.
When the bench said that the High Court has only used the word “suspect”, the ASG submitted that a clarification is needed. He said that the High Court observartions and findings have come while dealing with the bail application of the policeman who was arrested by the ACB. Delhi government has also filed a caveat to pre-empt passing of an ex parte order. In the application it has said that before passing any order, the city government be given an opportunity to make its stand clear.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had yesterday moved a petition before the apex court challenging May 25 order of the High Court which was hearing bail application of a Delhi Police constable arrested by ACB of Delhi Government on bribery charges.
The findings of the high court were part of a judgement in which it held that the anti-corruption branch of the NCT government has the jurisdiction to arrest policemen. The AAP government in Delhi and the LG have been involved in a public spat over his powers vis a vis an elected government.
The Centre had on May 21 issued a notification siding with the Lt Governor. The High Court had dismissed the bail application of a head constable, who was arrested by the ACB in a corruption case.
The Centre also sought stay of the May 25 High Court judgement saying it was delivered without hearing it and listed nine grounds for setting it aside including that it “upsets the delicate constitutional balance for governance of Delhi and that too without an opportunity of hearing being given to the Union of India”.
Among the other grounds raised, the Ministry of Home Affairs said the single judge erred in adjudicating the issue regarding the competence of the ACB of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to act on the complaint in the present case without issuing it notice and hearing submission of Union of India.
The petition said that the High Court failed to comply with the fundamental norm of natural justice — the right to be heard and despite recording that “this is an important constitutional issue which has a bearing on the executive authority of the Union” and the “issue cannot be finally determined without hearing the union and examining its stand”, the single judge did not hear it.
The Centre also said that the judge has recorded that the issue is pending before another bench but preferred to go ahead with it without referring it to the bench already seized of the issue. Assailing the High Court judgement, it said that under Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, the legislative assembly of Delhi is vested with the powers only in so far as such matter is applicable to the Union Territory and not otherwise.
Further, the petition said the constitution status of the NCTD is not the same as that of a state and it is a centrally administered territory of the Union under Schedule 1, Part II and its legislative and executive powers are restricted constitutionally. It said questions of law of general public importance arise in the facts and circumstances of the case including whether it is etitled to be heard wherein “a notification issued by it is contended to be invalid by a party to the proceedings”. (PTI)
