LG vs. CM: At least 20 court lawsuits involving Delhi’s two power centres

NEW DELHI: The legal battles between the two authorities have once again come to light thanks to Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena’s letter to the national government over “motivated petitions” by the Delhi government.

Records indicate that LG has been a party to at least 20 lawsuits filed in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court since Saxena took office. The two power centres are involved in at least nine cases in the supreme court and eleven cases in the high court, according to information obtained by TOI.
TUGG OF WAR
Significantly, the Delhi government’s “services” department is a party to many cases before the high court.

These are situations involving administrative and governance difficulties in the capital where the LG’s office is indirectly involved, while the department operates outside the purview of the AAP government.
Notices are sent to the respondents almost every day, and in matters that are regularly handled by the two courts, affidavits and counter-affidavits are submitted by the LG’s office or other branches of the elected government.
For example, on Friday, the Supreme Court sent a notice to the Delhi Jal Board in response to a request from the AAP government, which claimed that money had not been released to the organisation in charge of providing the city with drinkable water. DJB was also joined as a party to the petition by the court in the case known as “GNCTD vs. LG.” In his correspondence with MHA, Saxena used this particular instance as an example of the state government’s motivated petitions.
The Supreme Court gave the elected government executive control over services matters, with the exception of land, law and order, in May of last year. This was one of the other significant issues on which the elected government has filed court cases. Another was the enactment of an ordinance amending the NCT of Delhi Act’s provisions.
Other examples include the removal of the vice-chairman of the Delhi Dialogue and Development Commission, the nomination of aldermen to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi weeks after the first election to the reunified civic body without the assistance or advice of the relevant minister, and the finance department’s purported stoppage of funds to DJB on the orders of LG.
The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) was recently “reprimanded” by the Delhi High Court for bringing a lawsuit against LG based on a press release that his office never sent out. This is one of the cases that the DCPCR was involved in. Ultimately, DCPCR was forced to rescind its appeal against LG.
The verdict is still out on whether the Delhi government’s and other organisations’ complaints against the LG’s office are a genuine grievance of the elected dispensation, which has repeatedly complained to the court that bureaucrats ignore the ministers, leaving the state government with no choice but to file a lawsuit.
For instance, the high court has requested the LG’s office reply to a case contesting the dismissal of fellows hired under contract by several government agencies. The court has decided to find out the amount owed for the time they worked in the assembly, even though it just removed its stay on the termination.