L-G vs CM over removal of DDCD head Jasmine Shah, matter referred to President, HC told

“That in exercise of such authority vested in him by Article 239AA (4) of the Constitution, the Hon’ble Lt Governor, in terms of difference of opinion expressed by the Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister and approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, referred the matter to the Hon’ble President on 30.11.2022,” the affidavit read. It further stated that since the matter is pending before the President, it would be prudent that the High Court does not take action in the matter in the meantime.

The affidavit stated that exercising his powers under Article 239AA(4) read with rule 51 of the Transaction of Business of the Government of National Capital of Delhi Rules 1993 (TBR), the L-G directed that Shah be prohibited from discharging the function of vice-chairperson of the government think tank and from using official premises connected with the office of vice-chairperson DDCD pending the decision of the President of India.

It has been stated that despite the intimation sent to Chief Minister Kejriwal on November 30 about this reference, Kejriwal issued an order on December 8 directing the Planning Department to recall the November 17 order which contained the restrictions against Shah.

It has been argued that by way of the order, in complete contradiction to the constitutional provisions as well as the TBR, the CM proceeded to form an opinion on Shah for a second time. It has been alleged that the CM through the order proceeded to summarily decide Shah’s matter on merits also despite being aware of the reference.

As per the affidavit, Deputy CM Manish Sisodia made a file noting Shah’s removal on November 26 where he disagreed with the L-G’s decision, stating that the L-G does not have any powers to pass any interim orders curtailing the functioning of V-C of the DDCD and had sent the file for CM’s approval. On the same day, the CM approved the said noting, signed and endorsed it, forwarding the file to the planning department.

The Delhi government, through Deputy CM Sisodia representing DDCD, has submitted on affidavit the CM’s decision on December 8 which stated that the L-G “is not vested with any jurisdiction or authority in law to take cognizance of the complaint dated 13.09.2022 or for that matter pass any order/direction thereupon”. It further stated that the V-C of the DDCD is “appointed by the decision of the cabinet and the incumbent V–C can be removed only with the approval of the Chairperson, DDCD” — which is the CM. The matter will be heard on January 9, 2023.

Shah has questioned orders issued by Saxena, the planning department and the SDM, saying that the orders had lacked jurisdiction and “are without any authority of law, are illegal and ex facie mala fide and premature”. The first order was passed by the director (planning) on November 17 wherein he conveyed Saxena’s decision to request Kejriwal to remove Shah, 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 the staff and facilities withdrawn. Shah also challenged a November 18 order of the commission’s deputy secretary that withdrew all privileges and facilities extended to him as the vice-chairperson.

Saxena’s decision came following a complaint filed by BJP MP Parvesh Verma.

As an interim relief, Shah sought a stay on the orders and a direction to the SDM to reopen the sealed office. He wanted the director (planning), Saxena, and the SDM restrained from interfering with his discharge of duties.