qzjfrsceh

In SC judgment on L-G vs AAP, a word of caution for Kejriwal: ‘No room for anarchy’

Even as the Aam Aadmi Party is thumping its chest in pride, the Supreme Court verdict does carry a cautionary comment, apparently aimed at Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The court, which made categorical mentions of the Lieutenant Governor, said that there is no room for absolutism and anarchy. There is no room for absolutism and there is no room for anarchism also, the court said while delivering its order today. While the decision came as a major victory for the Delhi chief minister, this one statement was hailed by the BJP leaders as a word of advice to AAP. The way Supreme Court has pronounced its verdict against anarchy today, it is a matter of joy, the BJP said after the verdict in a press conference. The Supreme Court has said that constitution is supreme and there is no place of anarchy, Sambit Patra, BJP spokesperson, said in a press conference. The Supreme Court verdict, announced by a five-judge bench, unanimously held that Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal does not have independent decision-making powers. Further, it said that LG is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Headed by CJI Dipak Misra, the bench said that LG cannot act as an obstructionist, adding that decisions taken by Council of Ministers, must be communicated to the LG but that does not mean his concurrence is required. The top court made it clear that except for three issues, including police, land and law and order, Delhi government has the power to legislate and govern on other matters. The Supreme Court decision came on a number of appeals filed by Kejriwals government challenging the Delhi High Courts verdict which had held the L-G as the administrative head of the national capital. The top court further ruled that the L-G cant act in a mechanical manner and stall the decisions of the Council of Ministers. The apex court observed that LG needs to work in a harmonious manner with the Council of Ministers. The court further added that an attempt should be made to settle differences of opinion through discussions.

发表评论

邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注