Earlier, the Delhi HC noted that L-G Jung is bound to act upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers, and that the Centre’s “executive fiat” siding with him is “suspect”.

The Supreme Court will hear on Friday an appeal by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) against the Delhi High Court order that termed as “suspect” a Centre’s notification, barring the Anti-corruption Branch (ACB) of Delhi government from acting against its officials. On Thursday, Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh mentioned the matter before the court and sought an urgent hearing on the contentions that everyday administration has become difficult in Delhi after the HC order. “Total uncertainty prevails,” the ASG told a bench of Justices A K Sikri and Uday U Lalit. The bench then agreed to hear it on Friday.
The MHA’s petition appeals against the 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. READ: Notification unlikely to get past SC, says Constitution expert The petition questions the proprietary of the HC order in commenting against the May 21 notification although the arguments had been concluded on the bail plea on May 20. It pointed out there was no occasion for the Single Judge-bench to pass remarks against the notification when the notification was neither on record nor was it even argued, and the order had also been reserved a day before the notification came into being. The MHA complained the HC passed the judgement and made observations against the May 21 notification without hearing it on this aspect at all. In a gazette notification issued on May 21, the MHA had stated that the ACB police station shall not take cognizance of offences against officials, employees and functionaries of the central government services. It also gave the Delhi LG absolute powers on transfers and postings of senior officers. However, while dismissing the bail application of the constable, the High Court termed as “suspect” the Centre’s notification and held that the L-G cannot act on his discretion. It noted that L-G is bound to act upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers, who are directly elected by the citizens of Delhi, and that the Centre’s “executive fiat” siding with him is “suspect”. It observed that mandate of the people “must” be respected by the LG of GNCTD if there was no other “constitutional or legal fetter”. The petition has now raised questions if the HC was at all required to examine the notification and its implications when the issue pending before it pertained to a bail plea. As per the MHA, the HC unreasonably expanded the scope of the controversy and delved upon the notification even as it was moved only for bail.

Indian Express | May 28, 2015

Contact Lawyers In India : https://lawintellectindia.com/contact-us/