The Delhi High Court has bashed the AAP government over the CAG report pointing down its credibility.

Delhi High Court Scolds AAP Government For Handling Of CAG Report

On Monday, Delhi High Court spoke ill of the AAP-formed Delhi government for poor handling of the censored CAG report, while turning sceptical over the government’s motives. Justice Sachin Datta, speaking for a single-member bench set, frowned that the government has been dragging its feet in handling the report.

Court’s Strong Reprimand

• The court frowned at the government’s inaction on the CAG reports and said that the government’s delay in implementation raised doubt as to its seriousness.
• Justice Datta however noted that the government should have without delay present the reports to Speaker and has set in motion a discussion in the legislative assembly.
• He said to me, “The way you have dragged your feet has brought doubt up to question your identity.”
• The court made a point of noting that the government intentionally postponed the assembly session so that the reports would not be considered.

Government’s Response

• In defense to this, the Delhi government offered to explain that it wasn’t possible for it to continue conducting its sessions because of the impending elections.
• Delhi Assembly Secretariat had earlier submitted to the court that it would be futile to place CAG reports before the assembly as it dissolves in February.

BJP MLAs’ Petition

• Earlier seven BJP MLAs had approached the Delhi Assembly with a motion for presentation of the CAG reports.
• Delhi High Court had passed an order to Indian government, the Speaker and others to file reply to the said petition for direction for a special sitting to debate on 14 CAG reports.
• The Delhi government confirmed to the court that all 14 reports had been forwarded to the Speaker.

Arguments by BJP MLAs’ Lawyer

• Replying to the opposition BJP MLAs’ protest, Vijender Gupta pointed out that as a member of the house, he had the right to receive and debate over the CAG reports.
• Gupta called on the court to order the Speaker to summon a special sitting for the same.

Court’s Stance on the Matter

• However, the court appreciated the petition and said it could not the order the Speaker to convene the session immediately because the two sides must present their cases before the matter is decided on.
• The Delhi government opposed the petition and described it as politically motivated, and said it would file a counter-affidavit.
• Gupta’s lawyer argued that it is not a political matter, but a case of the government failing in its responsibility and asserted that it should be settled before the declaration of the polls.