துணைநிலை ஆளுநர்களின்(லெப்டினன்ட் கவர்னர்) அதிகார மீறல் குறித்தான சர்ச்சை.

புதுச்சேரி கிரன் பேடி, புதுடெல்லி அணில் பைஜ்ஜால் தேவையில்லாமல் யூனியன் பிரதேச அதிகாரங்களில் தலையிடுகின்றார்கள் என்ற சர்ச்சை விவாதத்தில் உள்ளது. டெல்லி துணைநிலை ஆளுநர் குறித்தான வழக்கில் மத்திய அரசு உச்சநீதிமன்றத்தில் டெல்லி தேசியத் தலைநகரம். ஆகவே தேசிய உணர்வோடு டெல்லியினுடைய அதிகாரத்தை கண்காணித்து நிர்வாகிக்க மத்திய அரசுக்கும் பங்குண்டு என்று கூறியுள்ளது. இந்த வழக்கின் தீர்ப்பை பொறுத்து துணை நிலை ஆளுநருடைய அதிகாரங்களின் வரம்பு ஒரு முடிவிற்கு வருமென்று தெரிகிறது.

CENTRE TO SC: DELHI GOVT DENIED CONTROL IN ‘NATIONAL INTEREST’

The Centre told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the Delhi Government was denied exclusive executive control for running Capital’s affairs in ‘national interest’. However, the court gave the example of Mohalla clinics to question L-G’s interference and asked Centre, “Does everything that transpires in Delhi relate to national interest?”

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Maninder Singh, on his fifth consecutive day of arguments, cited the intention of the Constitution makers to carve out Delhi as a Union Territory but with a Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Government had approached the Supreme Court posing the question how an elected Government in Delhi could be paralysed in its functioning with the L-G virtually exercising full control over every decision taken by it.

Responding to this argument, Singh produced the S Balakrishna Expert Committee report which formed the basis for enacting Constitutional amendment Article 239AA giving special powers to Delhi. He showed how the committee examined all possibilities and concluded that Delhi, though having an elected Government, cannot be allowed to have exclusive executive control in national interest for being the Capital.

Singh said, “The report conceived unfettered powers of the Union over the Capital due to the special interest in maintaining public order, rule of law and general administration.” For this reason, he added, that Article 239AA required Delhi Government to forward each proposal concerning Delhi to L-G, who had the right either to concur or object. In case of a difference of opinion, the matter was to go to the President for action.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Ashok Bhushan raised doubts whether national interest alone could be the guiding principle for Centre to intervene in the affairs of Delhi. “You have submitted that events taking place in Delhi does have a relation with national interest. But does everything that transpires in Delhi relate to national interest?”

The court gave the example of Mohalla clinics to illustrate its point whether a decision to open such clinics could be interfered by L-G on grounds of national interest. The Court further gave the example to clarify its point. Referring to a recent decision by National Green Tribunal (NGT) banning protests at Jantar Mantar, the bench said that if the Delhi Government allowed protesters to shift outside Hyderabad House, the Centre may object. “We want to know the underlying principle behind such a decision,” Justice Chandrachud said.

Singh urged the court that what decision is in national interest cannot be looked into by the court as the only issue before the court was whether executive control of Centre is located within the Constitutional scheme. Reading the Transaction of Business Rules, ASG stressed that the procedure contemplated under the Constitution and the laws governing Delhi require that the L-G cannot be bypassed in any matter. He said, though Delhi government can propose decisions, the decision-making rests with Union. 

URL: https://goo.gl/GzAFVV

#Lieutenant_Governor

#Union_Territory

#துணைநிலை_ஆளுநர்

#புதுவை

#டெல்லி

#KSRadhakrishnanPostings

#KSRPostings

@Radhakrishnan KS​

கே.எஸ். இராதாகிருஷ்ணன்.

08-12-2017