Madras HC curbs L-G role in Puducherry
CHENNAI, MAY 01, 2019 00:00 IST
Kiran Bedi
‘Amounts to running a parallel govt.’
The Madras High Court on Tuesday ruled that the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G)of Puducherry could not interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Union Territory when an elected government was in place. The court said incessant interference from the L-G would amount to running a “parallel government.”
Authoring a 150-page judgement, Justice R. Mahadevan said: “The Central government as well as the Administrator [the term used in the Constitution to refer to the Lieutenant-Governor] should be true to the concept of democratic principles. Otherwise, the constitutional scheme of the country of being democratic and republic would be defeated.”
The judge made it clear that government secretaries were bound to take instructions from the ministers concerned and the Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister, besides reporting to them on official matters. “The secretaries are not empowered to issue orders on their own or upon the instructions of the Administrator,” Justice Mahadevan said.
Practice disapproved
He disapproved of the alleged practice of government officials being part of social media groups through which the L-G was issuing instructions to them for redress of public grievances and reminded them that as per rules, they were bound to use only authorised medium of communication when it came to issues related to administration.
The judgement was delivered while allowing a petition filed by Congress MLA K. Lakshminarayanan in 2017, and quashing two clarifications issued by the Union Home Ministry that year with regard to the powers of the L-G.
The judge held that those communications had been issued without reference to the constitutional provisions and other laws.
Though the Centre had primarily questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to file the case, the judge rejected the objections on the ground that such a writ petition at the instance of an MLA was maintainable.
In his judgment, Justice Mahadevan also went on to point out the differences between the powers conferred on the legislatures of Puducherry and Delhi under Articles 239A and 239AA of the Constitution.
The judge said though Article 239AA imposes several restrictions on the legislature of Delhi, no such restrictions had been imposed explicitly in the case of Puducherry under Article 239A.
“The above Article symbolises the supremacy of the Legislature above the Administrator in case of the Union Territory of Puducherry.”
CHENNAI, MAY 01, 2019 00:00 IST
Kiran Bedi
‘Amounts to running a parallel govt.’
The Madras High Court on Tuesday ruled that the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G)of Puducherry could not interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Union Territory when an elected government was in place. The court said incessant interference from the L-G would amount to running a “parallel government.”
Authoring a 150-page judgement, Justice R. Mahadevan said: “The Central government as well as the Administrator [the term used in the Constitution to refer to the Lieutenant-Governor] should be true to the concept of democratic principles. Otherwise, the constitutional scheme of the country of being democratic and republic would be defeated.”
The judge made it clear that government secretaries were bound to take instructions from the ministers concerned and the Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister, besides reporting to them on official matters. “The secretaries are not empowered to issue orders on their own or upon the instructions of the Administrator,” Justice Mahadevan said.
Practice disapproved
He disapproved of the alleged practice of government officials being part of social media groups through which the L-G was issuing instructions to them for redress of public grievances and reminded them that as per rules, they were bound to use only authorised medium of communication when it came to issues related to administration.
The judgement was delivered while allowing a petition filed by Congress MLA K. Lakshminarayanan in 2017, and quashing two clarifications issued by the Union Home Ministry that year with regard to the powers of the L-G.
The judge held that those communications had been issued without reference to the constitutional provisions and other laws.
Though the Centre had primarily questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to file the case, the judge rejected the objections on the ground that such a writ petition at the instance of an MLA was maintainable.
In his judgment, Justice Mahadevan also went on to point out the differences between the powers conferred on the legislatures of Puducherry and Delhi under Articles 239A and 239AA of the Constitution.
The judge said though Article 239AA imposes several restrictions on the legislature of Delhi, no such restrictions had been imposed explicitly in the case of Puducherry under Article 239A.
“The above Article symbolises the supremacy of the Legislature above the Administrator in case of the Union Territory of Puducherry.”
No comments:
Post a Comment