The Delhi High Court on Monday expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Delhi Government’s delay in addressing the CAG reports, stating, “The way you have dragged your feet raises doubts about your bona fides.”
The bench, led by Justice Sachin Datta, emphasized that the reports should have been promptly forwarded to the Speaker and discussed in the Delhi Assembly. “You should have acted swiftly and initiated a discussion in the House,” the court remarked.
The bench also questioned the government’s handling of the matter, pointing out, “The timeline is clear; you’ve delayed things to prevent the session from happening.” The court further noted that the delay in sending the reports to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) raised concerns about the government’s intent and credibility.
In response to the court’s remarks, the Delhi Government argued that holding sessions with elections approaching posed a logistical challenge. However, the court remained firm, asserting that the matter needed to be addressed promptly.
The court also scheduled a detailed hearing on the matter for later in the day, after lunch.
In a previous hearing, the Delhi Assembly Secretariat had informed the court that presenting the CAG reports in the Assembly would be futile, as the Assembly’s tenure is set to end in February. This submission came in response to a petition filed by seven BJP MLAs, demanding that the reports be tabled in the Assembly.
The Delhi High Court had previously directed the Delhi Government, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and other respondents to respond to the petition. The BJP MLAs sought a special session of the Assembly to present 14 CAG reports on city administration.
In its response, the Delhi Government confirmed that all 14 reports had been forwarded to the Speaker. However, Vijender Gupta, the counsel representing the BJP MLAs, argued that it was his clients’ right as members of the Assembly to receive and debate the reports. He called on the court to direct the Speaker to convene a special session to table the reports.
The court noted that it could not issue an immediate order to the Speaker, as it needed to hear both sides before making a decision. The Delhi Government opposed the petition, claiming it was politically motivated, and expressed its intention to file a counter-affidavit. Gupta’s counsel countered that the issue was not political but about holding the government accountable, stressing the urgency of resolving the matter before the elections were announced.
