In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India questioned the necessity of every dispute between the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) being brought before it. This observation came as the court addressed a petition filed by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR), which sought redressal over the alleged freezing of its funds.
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading the bench which also included Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, remarked,
“What is happening is, every dispute, all and sundry, between the Government of the NCT of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor is coming here as a (Article) 226 petition.”
This comment was made in the context of the DCPCR’s plea and other similar disputes that have been brought to the apex court.
The Chief Justice further instructed the DCPCR to approach the Delhi High Court with its grievance, emphasizing the role of high courts in dealing with such matters.
“Go to the Delhi High Court. Why should we entertain a petition under (Article) 32 here,”
Justice Chandrachud advised senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who represented the DCPCR.
Sankaranarayanan argued that the DCPCR’s situation was somewhat unique compared to other disputes between the Delhi government and the LG. He highlighted the critical issue at hand, stating,
“This is a commission and the commission’s money has been frozen. How can six million children of the state be told that not a penny is going to come to the commission?”
In response, the bench reiterated the importance of high courts in such scenarios, questioning,
“Why are you bucking the Delhi High Court?”
The Chief Justice pointed out the frequent nature of disputes between the Delhi government and the LG reaching the Supreme Court, citing the recent case involving the discontinuation of the bus marshal scheme.
Sankaranarayanan also mentioned the end of the tenure of the members of the DCPCR, which currently hampers the commission’s ability to approach the high court afresh. Acknowledging this, the Supreme Court bench directed the apex court registry to transfer these proceedings to the Delhi High Court and renumber the plea as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This direction from the Supreme Court underscores the court’s perspective on the appropriate jurisdiction for resolving disputes between the Delhi government and the LG, highlighting the role of high courts in addressing such matters.
Also read-Supreme Court To Hear Nikhil Gupta’s Habeas Corpus Petition Amidst US Accusations (lawchakra.in)