‘Misuse of DDCD office’: Delhi HC seeks L-G’s response on AAP leader Jasmine Shah’s plea

The planning department had issued a show-cause notice to Shah after BJP MP Parvesh Verma filed a complaint against him in September alleging that Shah, while working as the DDDC vice-chairperson, “acted as official spokesperson of the Aam Aadmi Party for political gains, which is in violation of established procedures”. The L-G asked Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to sack Shah from the post for allegedly “misusing his office for political purposes”, and directed the Delhi government’s planning department to prevent him from using any “privilege and facilities” till a “decision is taken by the CM” in this regard.

Appearing for Shah, senior advocate Rajiv Nayar argued that the appointment of the vice-chairperson of DDCD is made by a decision of the Delhi Cabinet and is “co-terminus with the government”.

The high court asked whether the L-G would have the constitutional power to remove the VC, DDCA. Nayar responded that the LG does not, and that he could not have passed an interim direction. He submitted that this power is only with the DDCD chairman who is the Chief Minister, which was “recognised by the L-G wherein he said that the CM may take necessary action to remove” Shah as mentioned in the impugned order of director (planning).

Nayar said “one section and one rule” have been pressed in the impugned order which only pertains to “duties of Chief Minister in respect of furnishing of information to L-G”. He argued that “information” in the provisions cannot be read to mean that L-G can pass an order.

The court asked parties how the DDCD VC is appointed and whether any qualifications are required for the same. “It could be anyone? Is it a political office? Anyone can be appointed?” the court asked, to which it was informed that the position of VC is honorary. The HC thereafter said, “What is the nature of the commission? This is a body found by the GNCTD (Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi), funded by the GNCTD. These are all honorary positions to look after the affairs of GNCTD?“

When Nayar started to point towards Shah’s accomplishments, the court remarked, “Point is this… you may be very accomplished… but what has been noted in the Hon’ble L-G’s order, that also gets us thinking… Once you take up an honorary position whether you are obliged to give up another part of activities, while holding that post and office… can you continue or whether you should be permitted to continue”.

On November 21, Shah moved the high court against Saxena’s decision, which also bars him from using “any privileges and facilities connected with the office of VC, DDCD, with immediate effect”.

Shah has assailed four orders issued by the L-G, the planning department and the SDM (civil lines), saying they were passed “lacking jurisdiction, are without any authority of law, are illegal and ex facie mala fide and premature”.

The first order impugned in the petition was passed by the director (planning) on November 17 wherein he conveyed L-G Saxena’s decision to request chief minister Kejriwal to remove Shah from the post of DDCD VC, and pending such a decision, restrict him from using his office space and withdraw the staff and facilities assigned to him.

The second order too was by the director (planning) on November 17, directing that Shah’s office chamber be locked and all staff and facilities provided to him be withdrawn. Pursuant to the above order, Shah’s office was sealed on November 17 at 10.20 pm as stated in a sealing memo signed by SDM (Civil Lines), which has also been challenged in Shah’s plea.

Shah has also challenged an order of November 18 passed by the deputy secretary of the DDCD withdrawing all privileges and facilities extended to him as vice-chairperson.

In a plea filed through advocate Chirag Madan, Shah said Saxena did not have any jurisdiction to take cognisance of the complaint, seek Shah’s explanation or pass any directions on the same. “…the complaint ought to have been forwarded to the competent authority namely, the chairperson DDCD for examination and necessary action,” the plea said.

“…the entire basis of the proceedings against the petitioner that he has misused his office as vice chairperson, DDCD by appearing in television debates on behalf of the Aam Aadmi Party is fallacious and misconceived. It is submitted that the expectation of political neutrality is only associated with “government servants” who constitute the “permanent executive” in a Parliamentary system of democracy such as the one adopted by India… It is only persons appointed to a civil service or holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Union who are governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules,” Shah’s plea said.

“The petitioner, on the other hand, has been appointed by the Cabinet of the GNCTD to advise the government on issues of governance and his term is coterminous with the present government. He is not a part of the “permanent executive” but at the highest could perhaps be stated to be an extension of the political executive,” the plea contended.

The plea further claimed that sole supervisory jurisdiction over the appointment and discharge of functions by Shah is that of the Delhi Cabinet, hence the orders passed against him lack jurisdiction. The writ petition seeks the quashing of the orders.

As an interim relief, Shah sought the stay of operation of the above-mentioned orders and further sought a direction to SDM (civil lines) to forthwith de-seal the DDCD VC’s office. He also sought that the respondents (director planning, L-G and SDM) be restrained from taking any steps to interfere with the discharge of duties and functions by Shah as the DDCD VC.

Following the orders of the L-G and directions from the planning department, the SDM sealed the office premises of Shah’s office situated at Shamnath Marg, Civil Lines, on November 17, as per an official from L-G House. However, according to sources, Shah mostly works out of the Delhi Secretariat.