The Supreme Court Yesterday (May 10th) told the Centre to clear the outstanding bills for legal services and lawyers’ fees claimed by the Delhi government at the earliest and “not make it an issue of prestige”.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court intervened in a contentious issue between the Delhi government and the Centre, revolving around the authority to appoint lawyers and determine their fees. The apex court’s directive was clear: it asked the Centre not to treat this as a “matter of prestige” and to promptly settle the dues of lawyers who have represented the AAP government across various judicial platforms.
This dispute originated from an order by the lieutenant governor, which restricted the Delhi government’s jurisdiction over the selection and remuneration of its legal representatives. The AAP government has vehemently challenged this order, arguing that it severely undermines the elected government’s capability to represent the interests of Delhi’s electorate effectively.
In a hearing before a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave and lawyer Talha Abdul Rahman voiced concerns about the accumulating legal fees and the Centre’s reluctance to approve and disburse the necessary funds. Dave highlighted that the unresolved payments were not just financial issues but were also impeding the government’s ability to contest various legal battles against the Centre.
The bench, addressing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, emphasized the importance of resolving the matter without ego, to which Mehta responded with assurances of looking into the issue and resolving the controversy promptly.
The legal stance of the AAP government, as detailed in their petition, is that their inability to appoint and pay lawyers of their choice severely restricts their legal autonomy. This scenario, they argue, could lead to a situation where the central government might have undue influence over the selection and remuneration of lawyers representing the opposing party, a situation that could undermine the impartiality expected in legal battles.
The petition also argues that the orders in question overstep the constitutional boundaries, extending beyond the permissible limits set by the entries of police, land, and public order of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. By doing so, it infringes upon the legislative and executive competencies that are constitutionally granted to the Delhi government.
This development underscores the ongoing struggle for autonomy faced by the Delhi government and highlights the broader implications for governance and legal representation in the Union Territory.
The Supreme Court’s directive not only addresses the immediate financial grievances of the lawyers involved but also sets a precedent for how similar disputes should be handled in the future, ensuring that government entities have the necessary legal support to represent their constituents effectively.
YESTERDAY IN APEX COURT- KEJRIWAL GET’S BAIL
The Supreme Court has placed strict limitations on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, prohibiting him from accessing his official workspace at the Delhi Secretariat and the Chief Minister’s office for the duration of his 21-day interim bail period. This directive aligns with the ongoing legal scrutiny surrounding the embattled leader, highlighting the seriousness of the charges against him.
Arvind Kejriwal, who has been a central figure in Indian politics and the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), finds himself under judicial scrutiny due to allegations linked to corruption and money laundering in the now defunct excise policy of the Delhi government for the fiscal year 2021-22. Despite the gravity of these accusations, Kejriwal has not been formally convicted, and the Supreme Court underscored his clean criminal record and his non-threat status to society in their bail deliberation.
As part of the interim bail conditions, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta imposed a set of constraints aimed at minimizing Kejriwal’s potential influence on ongoing proceedings and administrative operations. Notably, the court ordered that Kejriwal
“shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat.”
Moreover, it was stipulated that Kejriwal
“shall be bound by the statement made on his behalf that he shall not sign official files unless it is required and necessary for obtaining clearance/approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.”
The court’s mandate extends to prohibiting any interaction with witnesses or accessing any official documents related to the case, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. Additionally, Kejriwal is required to maintain a cautious stance regarding public statements about the case, with explicit instructions to abstain from commenting on his involvement in the matter.
In terms of bail securities, Kejriwal has been instructed to furnish bail bonds worth Rs 50,000 along with a surety of a similar amount, to the satisfaction of the jail superintendent. This financial stipulation further underscores the legal responsibilities and constraints imposed on him during this interim period.
Adding to his challenges, Kejriwal’s movements and public engagements are severely restricted during this critical time in the Lok Sabha elections. The court has granted him the liberty to campaign until June 1, but with a caveat that he must surrender and return to custody on June 2, immediately following the cessation of his campaigning activities.
This unfolding scenario not only impacts Kejriwal’s political career but also sets a significant precedent in terms of judicial oversight concerning elected officials. The court’s decisions reflect a stringent approach to governance and accountability, especially in cases involving high-ranking government figures entangled in legal disputes.
“The appellant, Arvind Kejriwal, holds the position of Chief Minister of Delhi and is a prominent figure in a national political party. Although serious allegations have been leveled against him, he has not been convicted and has no prior criminal record. He does not pose a threat to society.”
-The judgment emphasized
The conditions set by the Supreme Court for his bail are as follows:
- He must provide bail bonds worth Rs. 50,000/- along with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
- He is prohibited from visiting the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat.
- He is bound by the representation made on his behalf, agreeing not to sign official documents unless necessary for obtaining clearance or approval from the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
- He is restrained from making any comments regarding his involvement in the ongoing case.
- He is barred from interacting with any witnesses or accessing official files related to the case.
Additionally, the Court dismissed the prosecution’s argument that granting interim bail would unjustly favor politicians over ordinary citizens. The judgment underscores that courts must consider the individual circumstances and peculiarities surrounding the person in question when deciding on interim bail, as failing to do so would be unfair.
The bench said,
“Let us not draw any parallel. He was arrested in March and the arrest could have been before or after. Now, after 21 days, there won’t be any difference. On June 2, Arvind Kejriwal will surrender.”
Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Kejriwal during the hearing, asked the court whether Kejriwal could get interim bail for June 5.
To this, Justice Khanna replied,
“No.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the ED, told the court that Kejriwal should not speak about the case and surrender on the date specified.
Shadan Farasat, representing Kejriwal, expressed efforts to secure Kejriwal’s release from Tihar Jail today itself after the Supreme Court granted interim bail until June 1.
“The interim bail extends till June 1, with surrender on June 2. This was conveyed orally; we await the order upload on the Supreme Court website to ascertain further details. Our priority is to ensure Kejriwal’s release today,”
-stated Farasat.
Following the Supreme Court’s interim bail order, Kejriwal’s legal team will proceed to the trial court for the preparation and transmission of the release order to Tihar Jail authorities, according to sources. Kejriwal’s release from jail will be facilitated only upon receipt of the trial court’s release order, they added.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) strongly opposed the Supreme Court’s proposal to grant interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is currently detained in connection with a money laundering case linked to the Delhi excise policy. Kejriwal, who was arrested by the ED on March 21, is housed in Tihar Jail as the legal proceedings continue.
The Supreme Court, while reviewing Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest and subsequent remand by the ED, considered allowing him interim bail to participate in the campaigning for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. However, the court stipulated that if granted interim bail, Kejriwal would be barred from performing any official duties as Chief Minister.
This money laundering investigation is an extension of a 2022 case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), following a complaint by Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena. Allegations suggest a conspiracy by AAP leaders, including Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, aimed at manipulating the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 to benefit specific liquor vendors.
During the legal proceedings on May 7, the Supreme Court hinted at possibly allowing Kejriwal interim bail, sparking discussions about the implications of such a decision, especially in light of the approaching elections. The ED, however, maintained that Kejriwal should not receive special treatment compared to other individuals facing criminal charges, simply because of his political status.
Kejriwal’s legal team argued that while the Chief Minister is not exempt from prosecution, his rights as a citizen should be respected equally with others. This argument was bolstered by the Supreme Court’s earlier inquiry into the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, suggesting a need for careful consideration of the political and legal nuances involved.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Delhi Excise Policy Scam
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
