Supreme Court allows BJP govt to withdraw cases against Centre, L-G in AAP regime
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 23, 2025) allowed the Delhi government to withdraw seven cases filed by the erstwhile AAP government against the Centre and Lieutenant Governor over issues including the control over services in the capital.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih took note of the submissions of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the BJP-led government, and allowed the plea.
After a lawyer raised the issue of non-payment of dues to advocates representing the previous government, Ms. Bhati assured the Bench that it would be taken care of.
Also Read | In setback for Delhi's AAP govt, Supreme Court upholds L-G's power to nominate 10 aldermen to MCD
On May 22, the seven bitterly-contested cases filed by the erstwhile AAP-led Delhi government against the Centre and the L-G were sought to be withdrawn from a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh.
Ms. Bhati referred to the plea saying the seven cases pending in the top court challenged the authority of L-G in several committees, including solid waste management, Yamuna River cleaning and against the validity of Acts and ordinances.
"These matters should not trouble this court anymore," she said.
The previous AAP-led Delhi government was involved in a bitterly fought legal battle in the top court over the powers including control over services in the national capital.
Also Read | AAP, L-G office clash over social media spend, threaten each other with legal action
The top court in July, 2023 sought a response from the Centre on the then AAP government's plea challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) (Amendment) Act, 2023, which created an authority for transfer and posting of Group-A officers in Delhi.
The Act, initially an ordinance, came a week after the Supreme Court handed over the control of services in Delhi excluding police, public order and land to the elected government.
It envisages to set up a National Capital Civil Service Authority for the transfer of and disciplinary proceedings against Group-A officers from the Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Civil) Services (DANICS) cadre.
Another such case was against a decision of the NGT, which was stayed in July 2023 by the top court.
The NGT order of January 19, 2023 asked L-G to head a high-level committee constituted to deal with issues concerning Yamuna rejuvenation.
The NGT constituted the high-level committee of authorities concerned in Delhi, where pollution of Yamuna was higher (about 75%) when compared to the other river basin states.
Other cases included a challenge to the alleged non-release of sanctioned funds for the Delhi Jal Board for the financial year 2023-2025 by the Finance Department of GNCTD; re-declaration that the L-G of Delhi is bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers of the GNCTD and directions for appointment of the chairperson of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC).
The Delhi government also sought to withdraw the challenge to orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the L-G with respect to release of payments to advocates appointed by the ministers without the concurrence of the L-G of Delhi and the appointment of advocates on record (AoRs) and advocates in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stays trial against former Haryana IAS officer in Manesar land case
The Supreme Court has stayed trial proceedings against former Haryana IAS officer Rajeev Arora in the Manesar land deal, investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The former IAS officer had petitioned the apex court after his revision petition challenging his summoning by a special CBI court was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana high court on May 15. A special CBI court had on December 1, 2020 ordered that the former IAS officer be summoned to face trial for committing offence under section 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the Manesar land matter. However, on a revision petition filed by Arora, the Punjab and Haryana high court on December 14, 2020 had stayed the operation and implementation of the order of the special CBI court. Rejecting the challenge to the special CBI court's December 1, 2020 order, the HC on May15 said it found no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned special CBI court in summoning the petitioners. An apex court bench headed by chief justice BR Gavai, however, on May 29 ordered that notice be issued to the respondents and 'proceedings qua the petitioner (Rajeev Arora) shall stand stayed till the next date of hearing.' During the trial court proceedings on Friday, Special CBI judge, Rajeev Goyal while referring to the apex court's order of May 29 ordered that proceedings against all the accused persons except Rajeev Arora shall commence. The special court in its June 6 order noted that it is, therefore, seen that all the accused except accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba, DR Dhingra and Rajeev Arora, have been ordered to be charge-sheeted qua the offences as detailed in the order December 1, 2020. The court said that now arguments need to be advanced on charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. Learned defence counsels seek time to prepare the arguments. Learned senior public prosecutor Harsh Mohan Singh submits that charge-sheet may kindly be framed against the accused persons who have already been ordered to be charge-sheeted vide order dated December 1,2020. 'I am not able to accept the submission made by the senior public prosecutor as it will not be appropriate to frame charge-sheet before considering the case concerning framing of charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. In case, the court after hearing contentions of the said accused persons and senior public prosecutor for CBI, concludes that charges are required to be framed against said accused persons as well, then a consolidated charge-sheet qua all the accused persons shall be framed and in my opinion, it will be more appropriate if such a course is adopted, for framing charge-sheet in a piecemeal manner is not desirable. As such, to come up on July 10, 2025 for arguments on charge qua accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra,'' ordered the special court.
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
2020 riots larger conspiracy case
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Friday decided to start hearing arguments on charge from July 2 in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case related to February 2020 riots. Additional Sessions Judge Lalit Kumar on June 2 noted that the prosecution and counsel for five accused persons had completed their arguments on charge. The court then sought the 'schedule regarding the time frame' and the manner of addressing the arguments, 'particularly time or hours' from the special public prosecutors and accused's advocates. On Friday, special public prosecutor Amit Prasad said the prosecution would take around four to five hours daily for at least five days to conclude its arguments. Prasad said he would supply a compilation for the court's convenience. The court agreed to the submissions of the prosecution and the counsel for the accused persons that the arguments on charge should continue post summer vacations. It was pointed out to the court that the proceedings in the present matter would take considerable time as the chargesheet runs into over 17,000 pages. Advocates for some other accused also made their submissions. 'This court considers it fit that a considerable time has already been lapsed and therefore, arguments on the point of charge have to be expedited,' the judge said on June 2.
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
HC grants relief to candidates
New Delhi : The Delhi High Court on Friday granted relief to CLAT-PG candidates over alleged discrepancies in the answer key and directed the consortium of NLUs to declare results soon. A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela's decision came over the plea of students in relation to a couple of answers in the key. The court, however, rejected the objection with respect to the declared answer to a third question, and asked the consortium of national law universities (NLUs) to accordingly award marks to the candidates. The court passed the order while deciding three pleas seeking rectification of errors in the final answer key of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-PG 2025. The bench's verdict highlighted the issue of a high fee of Rs 1,000 charged by the consortium per question for raising the objection to the provisional answer key, observing there ought to be a 'fine balance' between the concerns of the candidates and the institutions. While comparing the fee charged for objected questions by other organisations, the fees sought by the consortium 'appeared to be excessive and disproportionate' but the consortium's concern that it was required to keep frivolous individuals and coaching institutes at bay also did not appear to be 'fanciful or imaginative', it added. The bench, however, expected the consortium to take heed of its observations and take appropriate steps to 'avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations'. 'It may be advisable for the consortium to place this issue before the committee headed by Justice G. Raghuram (retd) for his valuable opinion which may be adhered to by it,' the bench said. The court ruled on the correctness of the answers in the answer key after considering each question and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and the consortium. CLAT determines admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in national law universities in the country. CLAT PG 2025 was held on December 1, 2024. Multiple pleas were filed in different high courts alleging several questions in the exam were wrong. On February 6, the Supreme Court transferred all the petitions over the issue to the Delhi High Court for a 'consistent adjudication'. The top court passed the direction on the transfer petitions of the consortium.
