Supreme Court Allows Delhi's BJP Govt To Withdraw 7 AAP-Era Cases Against L-G, Centre
Last Updated:
These cases questioned the L-G's authority over various administrative and regulatory matters
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Delhi government, led by chief minister Rekha Gupta, to withdraw multiple cases initiated by the previous Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) administration against the Centre and the lieutenant governor (L-G), mainly concerning control over administrative services.
The AAP-led Delhi government had filed seven cases against the Centre and the L-G. These cases questioned the L-G's authority over various administrative and regulatory matters, including waste management, cleaning the Yamuna River, and the validity of certain legislation and ordinances.
On Thursday, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh scheduled the application filed by the BJP-led Delhi government for May 23.
Representing the Delhi government, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati indicated a resolution to the long-standing legal disputes, stating, 'These matters should not trouble this court anymore."
In July 2023, the apex court had issued a notice to the Centre following a plea from the AAP-led government challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023. This legislation, which replaced an earlier ordinance, created an authority to oversee the posting and transfer of Group-A officers in Delhi. It was enacted shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the elected government's control over services, excluding police, land, and public order.
One of the withdrawn cases involved a stay granted by the top court in July 2023 against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order. In January 2023, the NGT had directed the L-G to lead a high-level committee for rejuvenating the Yamuna River.
Another petition concerned the alleged withholding of funds sanctioned for the Delhi Jal Board by the finance department of the Delhi government for 2023-25.
Additional cases included a plea reaffirming that the L-G must act on the advice of the GNCTD's council of ministers and another seeking directives on the appointment of the chairperson of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC).
The Delhi government has also decided to drop its challenge to the ministry of home affairs (MHA) and L-G orders related to the release of payments to government-appointed lawyers and the process for appointing advocates-on-record and other legal representatives in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.
(With agency inputs)
First Published:
May 23, 2025, 19:19 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
24 minutes ago
- India Gazette
BJP opposed earlier caste census report citing data inconsistency, why is it opposing a re-survey now: K'taka Dy CM
New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar on Wednesday questioned the BJP's intention in questioning the state government's decision to re-conduct the caste census. 'The BJP was opposed to the earlier caste census, citing data sanctity issues. We have announced a redo of the census, but the BJP is still opposing this too,' he said, while speaking to reporters here. Asked about BJP criticising the decision to reconduct the caste census, he said, 'The BJP did not accept the earlier caste census report, why the opposition now when we are trying to address the concerns? We are not rejecting the earlier census, we are only trying to correct the shortcomings of the earlier survey in order to allay concerns of several communities.' Asked if the survey would be conducted in a scientific manner this time, he said, 'The modalities would be discussed in the Cabinet meeting. Several communities, including Lambanis, Jains, Bestha communities had met me and raised concerns on the earlier survey. The previous survey was also done scientifically through door-to-door visits, but some of the people were hesitant to share their caste details. Our national leaders have given us certain guidelines. The AICC President too has given us many suggestions. The CM will discuss this in the Cabinet meeting and make a decision.' To a question of whether the government gave in to the pressure from powerful communities, he said, 'We have yielded to the pressures from all communities. We have yielded to the pressure from the media too.' When pointed out that the Veerashaiva community has welcomed the government's decision to redo the caste census, he said, 'Seers from Veerashaiva and Vokkaliga communities called me up and welcomed the decision. I appeal to all the seers to nudge their community members to participate in the survey and provide correct details.' Asked if it was D K Shivakumar's victory in convincing the High Command for a resurvey, he said there was no winner or loser in this matter. When questioned if there was a need for the state to reconduct the caste census when the Centre has announced a caste census along with the general census, he said, 'This is our Party's agenda, the BJP has copied it. Rahul Gandhi has always been advocating proportionate representation for the backwards classes.' Replying to a question on ED raids on Congress MLAs and MPs in the alleged Valmiki Corporation corruption case, he said, 'There is no link between our MLAs and Valmiki Corporation scam. Our leaders have not used the money in any election. As much as 90% of the money misused by the officials has been recovered.' (ANI)
India Gazette
24 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Enemies of Telangana: Revanth Reddy hits out at KCR family amid chaos over Kaleshwaram project
Hyderabad (Telangana) [India], June 12 (ANI): Amid ruckus over the alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy launched a scathing attack against the family of former CM K Chandrasekhar Rao, accusing them of being the 'true enemies' of the state. The CM said that he would present detailed facts and documents related to the Kaleshwaram Project within two days. He also ruled out the possibility of anyone from the KCR family being inducted into the Congress. 'As long as I am in power, there will be no entry for KCR's family into Congress,' Reddy said. He further accused Union Minister G Kishan Reddy of obstructing Telangana's development, calling him 'the biggest hurdle to the state's progress.' 'Kishan Reddy is the biggest hurdle to Telangana's progress,' Reddy said. Speaking about BRS MLC Kalvakuntla Kavitha's letter to her father, KCR, the Telangana CM labelled it a 'film-style drama' for attention. Earlier, Kavitha took potshots at the leaders of her party. Without naming anyone, she said that when her father, KCR, received notices in relation to the Kaleshwaram probe, no plan of action was set up. 'When KCR is given notices, there is no action plan. Instead of teaching me, tell me what is your action plan. Twitter tweets are not enough. Shouldn't we be on the ground?' Kavitha said, adding, 'During the Delhi liquor policy, when I went to KCR and wanted to resign, he said that they can't face me, and that's why the case has been filed against you.' The BRS MLC further criticised people in her party, labelling them 'converts.' 'Is it okay to say there are converts? Coverts should be controlled, and KCR should be protected,' Kavitha said, adding, 'If BRS is weak, BJP and Congress will become strong.' Meanwhile, KCR on Wednesday appeared before the PC Ghosh Commission in connection with alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram project. Heavy police deployment was witnessed at Hyderabad's BRK Bhavan ahead of his appearance. Previously, BRS MLA and former Irrigation Minister Harish Rao and BJP MP Etela Rajender, who previously served as Finance Minister in the BRS government, appeared before the commission. Justice PC Ghose Commission on Tuesday issued summons to former Telangana CM K Chandrashekar Rao (KCR), former Minister Harish Rao, and BJP MP Etela Rajender, who also served as a minister during the BRS regime, in the ongoing investigation into alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (KLIP). The Commission, which has been probing financial and procedural lapses in the multi-crore irrigation project, directed the three political leaders to appear for questioning in the first week of June. (ANI)
Scroll.in
35 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India's ‘pushback' policy violates domestic and international law – but won't face global censure
India's 'pushback' policy of forcing across the border individuals claimed to be undocumented migrants violates both domestic and international law, experts say. Since India launched Operation Sindoor against Pakistan on May 7, it has 'pushed' more than 2,000 people into Bangladesh, The Indian Express reported. At least 40 members of the Rohingya community have been deported to Myanmar even though many of them had cards issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The legality of the 'pushback' policy has been debated both in India and internationally. But at home, the Supreme Court has not stopped the deportation of Rohingya refugees despite challenges to such actions pending since 2017. Internationally, there is unlikely to be pressure on India from other nations to stop this strategy since many Western nations also employ similar practices, experts say. 'The problem is that most of Europe and the United States are engaged in this,' said Ravi Nair, executive director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre. 'So, who is going to bell the cat and say this is wrong when everybody is doing it?' Human rights lawyer and writer Nandita Haksar agreed. 'The Western states that are so vociferous in taking up human rights' also push refugees back from their shores, she said. 'Therefore, it would be difficult for the Western states to raise the issue of refugee rights with India.' The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use a wartime law to deport Venezuelan immigrants with little to no due process. — The New York Times (@nytimes) March 28, 2025 Assam's claim The most enthusiastic champion of this policy has been Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who said on Monday that his border state had been responsible for 'pushing back' more than 303 people believed to be Bangladeshi. This has been done under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, he said. This was the first time Sarma cited a legal justification for 'pushbacks' that the state government has been carrying out since May. As Scroll has reported, at least three of the 14 who were allegedly 'pushed out' of Assam on May 27 were later brought home. They had been deported on the basis of decisions by the state's foreigners tribunals. But the Supreme Court had stayed the decisions of the tribunals in the case of at least two of these individuals as their appeals are pending. The pushback policy violates India's own constitutional guarantees and established legal procedures for deportation, experts said. Forcibly detaining individuals and physically throwing them out of the country violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, applies to all persons within India's territory, regardless of their citizenship status, said Rita Manchanda, research director at the South Asia Forum for Human Rights. This has been underlined by the Supreme Court in several judgements, she noted. The same article was also violated when the Indian authorities deported Rohingya refugees, forcing them into a country that is gripped by civil war and where they face genocide, experts say. 'Pushing them into an active war zone poses a direct threat to their life,' said Anghuman Choudhury, a doctoral candidate in Comparative Asian Studies jointly at the National University of Singapore and King's College London. Choudhury emphasised that Sarma's statement that deportations will be carried out 'without legal process' violates of Article 14 of the Constitution. This article guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law to everyone within Indian territory. 'Everyone has a right to be heard as per law,' he said. 'You cannot just pick up any suspected foreigner – even the suspected foreigner needs to go through the legal process.' Besides, these processes have been instituted to ensure that no Indian citizens are expelled from their country, he added. Is this a new policy? Experts told Scroll that while India had engaged in 'push backs' of foreigners before, it had never adopted this as a strategy for deportations. Contrary to Sarma's claim that 'pushbacks' are a 'new innovation', this method has been used on the India-Bangladesh border since at leastt 1979, said Choudhury, the doctoral candidate – but the purpose has changed. Until recently, 'pushbacks' meant that the Assam border police or the Border Security Force would stop individuals they spotted trying to enter India from Bangladeshi territory and force them to return or would 'push back' those who had managed to cross the border into India. 'But those were ad hoc cases,' Choudhury said. 'What we are seeing today seems to be a more large-scale systematic policy.' What is also unusual is India's decision to 'push back' refugees, said Nandita Haksar. 'The rate and cruelty with which refugees, including those recognised by the [United Nations High Commission for Refugees] are being deported even at the risk of their lives is new and disturbing,' she said. Ravi Nair agreed. 'India had pushed back people before…,' he said. 'But this kind of pure abduction and putting them into no man's land is clearly crossing the Rubicon.' Violation of domestic law and due process The legal process for deportations in India is articulated in a Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in 2011. All deportations must be initiated by the Ministry of External Affairs sending the identity details of the apprehended foreigner to their country's embassy. The person can be deported only after confirmation of the person's nationality has been received through these diplomatic channels. The current 'pushback' policy bypasses these procedures, Nair said. 'We have to submit the names and the documents of alleged Bangladeshi nationals to the government of Bangladesh,' he said. 'Once those are verified and Bangladesh is willing to take them, then they are sent back. That is clearly not being followed.' Last month, Scroll reported that 40 Rohingya refugees who had been detained in Delhi alleged that they had been forced off a navy vessel in the Andaman Sea with life jackets on May 7 and told to swim towards Myanmar. Choudhury pointed out that the deportations of Rohingya refugees in this manner violated a 2021 order of the Supreme Court. In a case requesting a halt to the expulsions of Rohingya refugees, the court had said that they could be deported. But it explicitly mandated that deportations must adhere to due process, a directive that appears to be 'directly violated' by the current policy, Choudhury said. Breach of international law Experts told Scroll that 'pushing back' refugees violated India's obligations under international law and customary international law. The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits states from returning individuals to a country where they would face persecution, is considered jus cogens – a peremptory norm of international law binding on all states. 'The principle of non-refoulement is also seen as a customary international law,' making it binding even if a country has not ratified specific conventions, Choudhury said. India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. 'But as a member of the UN General Assembly, which is the parent body of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, India is strongly expected to adhere by customary international law,' he said. 'Customary law transcends treaty obligations.' He pointed out that India is a signatory to the Bangkok Principles on Status and Treatment of Refugees, issued in 2001, and the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees, which India signed in 2018. Both mandate non-refoulement as a principle to be upheld by their signatories. India is also a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. These treaties too contain provisions that implicitly or explicitly uphold the principle of non-refoulement, particularly concerning the right to family unity and protection from inhuman treatment, said Aman Kumar, a PhD candidate at the Australian National University who runs the Indian Blog of International Law. 'When you return female refugees back to Myanmar, or you separate children from their parents through deportations, you violate these treaties,' Kumar said. He noted that India had an 'extensive and wide record of accepting refugees as a state practice.' He pointed to asylum granted over the decades to tens of thousands of refugees from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tibet, in stark contrast to the current Indian government's hostility towards Rohingya refugees. Scrutiny of policy unlikely Internationally, India's 'pushback' policy is likely to attract scrutiny from United Nations agencies. On May 15, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in Myanmar began an inquiry into alleged deportation of 40 Rohingya refugees from Delhi. The special rapporteur, Thomas Andrews, described these alleged acts as 'unconscionable' and 'unacceptable'. Many experts told Scroll that India is already receiving bad press on the issue internationally. However, direct action against India would face significant hurdles. If a country violates treaty obligations, action could be launched against it in the United Nations' International Court of Justice. But geopolitical realities often deter international action, Kumar said. 'India is too strategically important as a huge market and a potential alternative to China in the global supply chain,' he said. As a consequence, he does not foresee another country taking India to the International Court of Justice. In theory, Bangladesh – the country most affected by this policy – could start proceedings against India in the International Criminal Court, said Nair. 'Even though India is not a party to the International Criminal Court, Bangladesh is,' he said. 'A state party can bring a complaint against a non-state party before the court.' However, he said, that possibility was remote because Bangladesh is unlikely to want to aggravate India at a time of fraught relations between the two. Manchanda said that India may face some heat at the United Nations Human Rights Council's upcoming session on June 16. 'I expect that there will be statements made by civil society groups expressing outrage at what India is doing,' she said. She pointed out that in June 2024, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had called for India to refrain from forcibly detaining and deporting Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. But Manchanda said she was 'unsure about how much traction this would get.' Kumar did not believe the policy would be halted. 'Legally there is essentially nothing stopping India from continuing to carry out such deportations,' he said.
