In a significant development in Delhi’s administrative and legal landscape, Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena has dissolved a key committee established by the AAP government. This committee was tasked with overseeing the quality of criminal case investigations. The dissolution is based on the assertion that the committee’s functioning was in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment on January 7, 2014, in the State of Gujarat vs. Kishan Bhai case, had issued explicit directions for the formation of a Standing Committee in each state. This committee, comprising senior police officers and officials from the Prosecution Department, was mandated to examine all orders of acquittal and record reasons for the prosecution’s failure in each case. The objective was to scrutinize the effectiveness of criminal investigations and prosecutions.
In line with the Supreme Court’s directive, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on March 24, 2014, issued an advisory emphasizing the monitoring of investigations. The advisory suggested that the Committee, consisting of senior officials from the police and prosecution departments, should analyze cases to identify mistakes committed during the investigation or prosecution stages.
The committee in question, initially led by the Standing Counsel (Criminal) of the Delhi High Court and an Additional Standing Counsel as a member, has been restructured following its dissolution. The reconstituted committee now includes the Additional Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary (Home) as its chairman, with the Principal Secretary (Law), Director (Prosecution), and Special Commissioner of Police as members.
The decision to dissolve the existing committee was not taken lightly. LG Saxena, in his statement, noted,
“There was no reason or justification for the continuation of the existing Standing Committee and even his predecessor had time and again objected to it…However, no proposal for reconstitution of the said Committee was submitted.”
This statement underscores the perceived inadequacies in the committee’s composition and functioning, which were deemed inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
Also read- Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe Into 15-Year Land Compensation Corruption In Noida (lawchakra.in)
Further elaborating on the concerns, the LG secretariat’s statement quoted Saxena, saying,
“This approach of the ruling dispensation appears to be an attempt to control the service matters of police and prosecution officers, which is not in their executive domain.”
This comment reflects a deeper apprehension about the potential overreach of the Delhi government in matters that traditionally fall outside its purview.
The inclusion of the Standing Counsel (Criminal) and Additional Standing Counsel in the committee was particularly contentious. The LG secretariat’s statement pointed out that their roles in presenting cases before the court brought their involvement in the committee under scrutiny. The statement read,
“Therefore, the role of both in such cases also came under the purview of the Committee and including them in the Standing Committee should be viewed as an attempt to dilute the directions/guidelines issued by the Supreme Court/Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.”
This move to dissolve and reconstitute the committee is a clear indication of the LG’s commitment to ensuring that the oversight of criminal investigations in Delhi is in strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives and the central government’s guidelines. It also highlights the ongoing tension between the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor’s office over administrative jurisdiction and the extent of executive powers.
