Apex court slams Centre, LG for Delhi deadlock

Following this submission, the court began hearing the petition by the Aam Aadmi Party, which has demanded fresh elections in Delhi, on merits of the case — sending the entire matter back to square one after six months.

The petition was not being heard on merits since the Centre had told the court that the President and the LG were mindful of the court’s concerns with regard to ensuring a democratic government in Delhi.

Earlier, the Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India H L Dattu said: “They (petitioner) may be justified in saying that these people (government) are trying to hoodwink the court. Nothing sincere has been done by you. This cannot go on forever. It is not such a big issue that the LG will take so much of time in taking a decision. He should have decided it one way or another. With the greatest of respect, we say the LG should have taken a decision by now.”

It said that ideally, issues relating to the formation of a government by either inviting a political party or by ordering fresh polls was not something that should require a decision by a court but it also acknowledged that the President’s Rule cannot go on forever.

On being informed that the President has accepted the LG’s proposal to invite the BJP to form government, the court asked why this development happened just a couple of days before the court had to hear the case. “Why could you not do this earlier? Just before the matter is taken up for hearing, you make a statement and push a letter. You come out with statements in newspaper and news channels about these developments. How long can this go on? There has to be at least a positive attitude by the government in such matters,” it said.

Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha had placed the letter from the President to the L-G before the court, pointing out that possibilities were being explored to see if a government could be formed without fresh elections.

The court said: “What is this? Before every hearing, you throw a paper and ask us to adjourn the case. We did not adjourn the matter on the last date for this. We wanted you to take a decision but nothing has happened so far. We gave you enough time and kept adjourning the matter but you have done nothing. Can’t they take a decision showing some urgency when they know the matter is before us?”

It added that if the government did not want to take a decision, it could say so and the court would then decide all the issues raised by the petition of the Aam Aadmi Party on merits.

At this, Narasimha replied: “At no point of time, I took time for enabling the President or the L-G to take a decision on the new government. It was only out of sheer deference I said I will communicate the feelings of this court to them. There are judgments holding there would only be limited judicial review in such matters. The rule of the legislature says order of suspending an assembly is valid for at least one year.”

The court shot back: “But we were not told all this by you earlier… We were told you were taking time to take a decision… now why do you say out of deference you are doing this? We are capable to take a decision and we don’t have to entrust anybody else for doing it on our behalf. We will therefore hear the matter on the merits of the case.”

Subsequently, advocate Prashant Bhushan began his arguments for the AAP and urged the bench to order fresh polls immediately since there remained no justification to continue with the President’s Rule. He said horse-trading could be the only mode by which the BJP could form government and that the court should hence issue orders to stop this malpractice. The bench will continue hearing the case on Thursday.