Delhi HC Declines Special Assembly Session on CAG Reports; Highlights AAP’s Delay

Delhi HC Declines Special Assembly Session on CAG Reports; Highlights AAP’s Delay

The Delhi High Court recently declined to direct the convening of a special session of the Delhi Legislative Assembly to discuss 14 reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections. However, the court did not hold back in criticizing the Delhi government for its delayed handling of the reports, highlighting its constitutional obligation to table them in the Assembly.


BJP’s Plea for Tabling CAG Reports

The petition was filed by BJP leader Vijender Gupta and several BJP MLAs, demanding that the Delhi government table the 14 CAG reports that highlight the policy initiatives of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government. The plea argued that these reports should be debated in the House to ensure transparency and government accountability.


Delhi Government’s Defense and Speaker’s Stance

Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, representing the Speaker of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, opposed the plea. He argued that:

  • Procedural Impracticality: With just 20 days remaining in the current Assembly's tenure, it would be impractical to convene a session and complete the necessary formalities under the Rules of Procedure.
  • No Fundamental Rights Violation: The matter did not constitute a violation of fundamental rights, which is generally a prerequisite for judicial intervention.

Court’s Criticism of AAP Government

The High Court had previously taken a stern view of the Delhi government’s delay in tabling the reports. Justice Sachin Datta noted:

  • Unnecessary Delays: The timeline of events showed that the government had deliberately delayed forwarding the reports to the Speaker.
  • Doubts on Bona Fides: The delay was perceived as an attempt to prevent a meaningful discussion on the reports in the Assembly. The bench remarked, “The way you have dragged your feet raises doubts about your bona fides.”

BJP MLAs’ Arguments

Vijender Gupta and his counsel asserted that:

  • Right to Debate: As members of the House, they had the right to access and debate the CAG reports.
  • Government Accountability: The reports needed to be discussed before the election announcements to ensure transparency and accountability.

Government Labels Plea as Politically Motivated

The Delhi government opposed the plea, describing it as politically motivated. It argued that the petition was an attempt by BJP MLAs to gain political mileage before the elections. The government also informed the Court that all 14 reports had already been sent to the Speaker.


Delhi Assembly Secretariat’s Submission

The Delhi Assembly Secretariat submitted that tabling the reports at this stage would serve no practical purpose, given that the Assembly’s tenure was nearing its end in February. This submission came in response to the BJP MLAs’ plea to convene a special session.


Delhi High Court’s Final Observations

The court declined to issue an immediate directive to the Speaker, emphasizing that both parties needed to be heard before a decision could be made. However, it reaffirmed the constitutional obligation to table the reports, stating:

  • “Tabling the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports before the Delhi Legislative Assembly is a mandatory constitutional obligation.”

Conclusion: Accountability vs. Practicality

While the court did not order the convening of a special session, it underscored the Delhi government’s failure to fulfill its constitutional duties in a timely manner. As the political debate around the issue intensifies, the court’s remarks on accountability and transparency highlight the importance of addressing such matters before electoral announcements.


Key Takeaways

  • The Delhi High Court criticized the AAP government for delays in tabling CAG reports, raising questions about its transparency.
  • The BJP MLAs’ plea aimed to ensure accountability by discussing the reports before the upcoming elections.
  • The Delhi Government’s defense focused on procedural impracticalities and labeled the petition as politically motivated.

Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

District Judges' Appointment and Service: Constitutional Framework and Contemporary Imperatives

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Constitutional Provisions Governing Union Territories and Delhi: A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles 239 to 240

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Rights of a Arrested Person in India