Advisory panel chairman: HC junks plea against Raghav Chadha appointment, asks Mann govt to decide on representation

Bhatti filed the PIL terming the move of the Punjab government to appoint Chadha as chairman of a temporary advisory HC junks plea against Chadha appointment, asks Mann govt to decide on representation panel “illegal,” “arbitrary”, and “in exercise of non-existent laws of the central and state governments”.

Bhatti contended that the appointment of Chadha, a Rajya Sabha member and an “outsider not being a part of the state legislative assembly”, in a minister rank was in violation of the Constitution.

The Punjab government, through chief secretary on July 6, issued a notification stating that Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann “has undertaken a review of the working of government at various levels and is of the view that a body (temporary in nature) is required to tender advice” to the government of Punjab on matters of public importance pertaining to public administration.

“Therefore, it has been decided to constitute a temporary committee to advise the government of Punjab on matters of public importance pertaining to public administration as and when such advice is sought from it,” read the notification.

Bhatti contended that the notification was in violation of the constitutional mandate and amounts to a “parallel government within the government”, which was not permissible.

Appearing on behalf of the state, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh submitted that this was not a notification, it was just an order of the chief minister and the petition was premature.

The matter was considered at the chief minister’s level before it was sent to the council of ministers for approval, and only thereafter the appointment was cleared. It was completely in accordance with the statute and not alien to the law, Gurminder Singh submitted.

The bench thus disposed of the matter with direction to the government to decide on the representation of the petitioner.

Bhatti in his petition before HC had contended that the chief secretary had no such power to issue a notification regarding the temporary advisory committee. Its “bare reading shows that the CM is of the view that a body (temporary in nature) is required to tender advice to the government of Punjab on matters of public importance (not specified)”, the petitioner said, adding that it amounted to “inviting multiple people to run the affairs of the alleged temporary and ad hoc committee”.

“An additional burden on the state exchequer by way of providing the staff and infrastructure has been created and the funds meant for the development of the state of Punjab cannot be diverted under such camouflage,” he submitted.

The petitioner mentioned that Chadha is “directly and indirectly related to Arvind Kejriwal, convener of Aam Aadmi Party”.

Bhatti sought to issue directions to the chief secretary that no financial benefits be extended to the “illegal chairman or his staff or infrastructure” at the cost of the public exchequer and that “his disqualification motion may be ordered to be set in motion”.

He also sought to freeze the salaries, other financial benefits and facilities provided to Chadha and the members of the advisory panel.

Meanwhile, after the matter was disposed of by HC, leader of opposition Partap Singh Bajwa claimed that the HC has orally stated that such an appointment was not only unconstitutional but also against the functioning of the government which consisted of democratically elected persons.