Delhi High Court Concludes DCPCR’s Funding Petition Against LG V K Saxena: Justice Subramonium Prasad oversaw the case; DCPCR chose not to pursue. Another petitioner withdrew, signaling a shift within DCPCR.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(2nd April), The Delhi High Court has concluded discussions regarding a petition filed by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR). The petition raised concerns about the alleged cessation of financial support, purportedly initiated by Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena.
Justice Subramonium Prasad presided over the case, which became significant when the DCPCR, through its legal representation, opted not to further pursue the petition. An additional layer of complexity was added by the withdrawal of a second petitioner, previously an active member of the commission, indicating a shifting stance within the DCPCR itself.
Justice Prasad’s statement:
“In view of the application, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn,”
The court chose not to analyze the validity of the accusations or counterarguments, creating uncertainty regarding the raised concerns. It expressly mentioned that it did not assess the issues presented in the petition, thereby leaving all arguments of the involved parties unresolved and subject to future discussion.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Seeks LG’s Response on DCPCR’s Plea
Last year, the DCPCR brought its concerns to the Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority in the country. They highlighted issues like a funding blockage and an investigation directed at them by LG Saxena. This investigation accused them of mishandling government funds.
On December 15, when the Supreme Court redirected the matter to the high court. This decision came with a pointed observation questioning the necessity for every conflict between the Delhi government and the LG to escalate to the apex court. It was a directive that not only aimed to decongest the Supreme Court’s docket but also signaled the need for local resolution of governance disputes.
However, the LG’s office presented a counter-narrative in the high court, dismissing the entire petition as one grounded on a “purported” press note, hence questioning the factual basis of the DCPCR’s allegations. This assertion, coupled with the revelation that the affidavit of the second petitioner—no longer associated with the DCPCR—served as a foundational document for the petition.
As the Delhi High Court closes this chapter without examining the core issues, the matter remains a subject of speculation and discussion. The decision to not press the petition, as recorded by Justice Prasad, not only highlights the procedural aspects of judicial disputes but also casts on the challenges facing bodies like the DCPCR.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Clarifies: No LG Order to Halt DCPCR Funding, Awaits Affidavit Submission
