In their over-enthusiasm to claim victory, Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and rest of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leadership failed to discern the fine print of Supreme Court (SC) verdict.

The tweets fired off by two top AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Saurabh Bharadwaj just minutes after the verdict indicated the Kejriwal government had begun searching for fresh avenues of conflict rather than working out a more conciliatory path of coordination (as advised by the apex court).

Deputy Chief Minister Sisodia stressed that “elected government would now be free to do transfer and postings of officials” and files need not be sent to Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal. Bharadwaj, the party spokesman, eagerly expressed the party and government’s wish for the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to be brought under control of Kejriwal government.

The ACB is staffed by Delhi Police personnel and headed any an Additional Commissioner of Police-rank officer. It has the power to register FIRs, investigate, arrest and prosecute. Control over ACB gives Kejriwal the power to police (albeit indirectly). It should be noted that in the national capital, police, public order and land is under the ambit of the Centre and the same has been reiterated by Supreme Court order on Wednesday. Further reasons for conflict over control of ACB and why Kejriwal government can’t have it will be analysed a bit later.

The hurry to have absolute discretion on transfer-posting of officials and employees of all grades — Indian Administrative Service (IAS) to peons — and let all concerned know about it indicates the keenness of the AAP and Kejriwal government to tame permanent bureaucracy and subordinate staff. Power to transfer and post have been most important tools in the hands of political leadership to make both individual bureaucrats and bureaucracy at large toe their line (right or wrong).

Kejriwal government’s desire to make bureaucracy work as per their whims has been at the root of alleged manhandling of Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash in the presence of Kejriwal and Sisodia and subsequently at “sofa dharna” which Kejriwal staged with three of his ministerial colleagues at Raj Niwas.

True to Sisodia’s words, the very first decisions taken by Kejriwal government was thrusting upon themselves the power to transfer IAS, Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service (DANICS), Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DASS) and other officials as and when Kejriwal and ministerial colleagues deemed fit.

The subsequent response by the bureaucracy proved Kejriwal and the rest of political leadership grossly underestimated the power and resoluteness of the former to go by the book. An order by deputy chief minister of half-a-state/Union Territory with regard to assuming absolute powers to transfer top babus to subordinate staff could not override a Presidential notification (21 May, 2015), which entrusted L-G, chief secretary and secretary services with the task.

Kejriwal and his team argue that beyond police, public order and law, all other powers rest with elected government but they don’t care to read other part of the ruling, which said, “The status of NCT of Delhi is sui generis, a class apart”… and other parts reaffirming it is not a full State and can’t be a full State under present constitutional scheme and is a Union Territory (UT).

“Services” is listed in state list but as per the interpretations of Union home ministry since Delhi is not a state but a UT, power to command services is not vested with city government. SC ruling also said Delhi is a UT. IAS officers posted here are UT or AGMUT (Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram and Union Territory) cadre. DANICS officials are of Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Island Civil Services cadre.

It is thus taken that it is beyond purview of Delhi government (Kejriwal) to transfer and post their as per its likes or dislikes. For 15 years, Sheila Diskhit — and Sahib Singh Verma or Madan Lal Khurana before her — didn’t have much of a problem with the system because they all worked in coordination with the LGs. Kejriwal, however, chose a confrontationist path and the results are there for everyone to see: Making the people of Delhi suffer.

Union minister Arun Jaitley, who besides being born and brought up in Delhi, has closely studied constitutional provisions and law. He wrote in his blog: “The Supreme Court has held categorically that Delhi cannot compare itself at par with other states and, therefore, any presumption that the administration of the UT cadre of services has been decided in favour of the Delhi government would be wholly erroneous.”

Kejriwal and his colleagues clearly have other ideas. The issue, in all likelihood, will go to the SC. Until then, Delhi will see a stalemate between Kejriwal and L-G-bureaucracy. As for control over ACB, Jaitley’s argument is logical (albeit without naming it) when he said, “If Delhi has no police powers, it cannot set up investigative agency to investigate crimes as had been done in the past.”

It may be recalled on 11 February, 2014, in his first short-lived stint as Delhi chief minister, Kejriwal ordered an FIR be filed against two Union ministers and a leading industrialist, leading the Ministry of Home Affairs to clearly define ACB’s domain and who controls it.

The Supreme Court laid down broad parameters for the governance of the national capital, which has witnessed a bitter power tussle between the Centre and Delhi government since the Aam Aadmi Party government came to power in 2014.

NEW DELHI: 

Union Minister Arun Jaitley today said that the Supreme Court verdict has made it clear that the Delhi government has no police powers and, hence, it cannot set up an investigating agency to probe crimes committed in the past.

He also said that the presumption that the issue concerning administration of the Union Territory cadre of services has been decided in favour of the city government would be “wholly erroneous”, the minister said in a Facebook post on Supreme Court’s observations in the Delhi government case.

“There are several issues which had directly not been commented upon, but by implication there is some indication of those issues. However, unless issues of importance are flagged, discussed and a specific opinion is rendered, none can assume that silence implies an opinion in favour of one or the other,” Mr Jaitley said.

As Delhi has no police powers, it cannot set up an investigative agency to probe crimes as had been done in the past, the minister said.

“Secondly, the Supreme Court has held categorically that Delhi cannot compare itself at par with other States and, therefore, any presumption that the administration of the UT cadre of services has been decided in favour of the Delhi government would be wholly erroneous,” the minister added.

The 5-judge bench of Supreme Court yesterday unanimously held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a state and clipped the powers of the Lieutenant Governor (LG), saying he has no “independent decision making power” and has to act on the aid and advice of the elected government.

The Supreme Court laid down broad parameters for the governance of the national capital, which has witnessed a bitter power tussle between the Centre and Delhi government since the Aam Aadmi Party government came to power in 2014.

Mr Jaitley said the judgement elaborates at length the constitutional philosophy behind the Constitution and reaffirms precisely the text of what the Constitution says.

“It does not add to the powers of the state government or the central government nor does it in any way dilute the same. It emphasises at the importance of elected state government, but Delhi being a Union Territory makes its powers subservient to the central government,” he said.

Mr Jaitley said, ordinarily, in the larger interest of democracy and federal politics, the Lieutenant Governor should accept the exercise of power by the state.

“But if it has good and cogent reasons supported by material to disagree, he can record the same in writing and refer the same to the President (i.e. the central government), which will resolve the difference of opinion between the state government and the Lieutenant Governor.”

“The decision of the central government will be binding both on the Lieutenant Governor and the elected state government. Thus, hereto the opinion of the centre is over-riding,” Mr Jaitley said.

He said the judgement gives due importance to the opinion of the elected state government, but maintains the primacy of the central government in the larger interest of the national capital.

“Delhi is not a state and, therefore, there could be no assumption that powers which belong to state government’s also belongs to the elected government of the Union Territory.

“It has been specifically held by the Supreme Court that it is crystal clear that by no stretch of imagination, NCT of Delhi can be accorded the status of a state under the present constitutional scheme and the status of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State, rather he remains an administrator, in a limited sense, working with the designation of Lieutenant Governor,” Mr Jaitley added.

जेएनयू की उच्च-स्तरीय जांच समिति ने उमर खालिद को कॉलेज से बाहर निकालने के फैसले का समर्थन किया है. साथ ही कन्हैया कुमार पर 10,000 रुपए का जुर्माना लगा दिया है. जांच समिति ने 2016 फरवरी मे अफजल गुरु की फांसी के खिलाफ कैंपस में एक प्रदर्शन किया था. यह जांच इसी मामले को लेकर चल रही थी.

जेएनयू की जांच समिति में 5 सदस्य थे, जिन्होंने यह फैसला लिया है. अफजल गुरु की फांसी के विरोध में जेएनयू के छात्रों ने कैंपस में देश विरोधी नारे लगाए थे. पैनल ने इस मामले में अपना फैसला अभी भी बरकरार रखा है.

2016 की शुरुआत में जेएनयू जांच समिति ने खालिद और दो अन्य छात्रों को कॉलेज से निकालने का फैसला सुनाया था. इसके साथ ही यूनियन प्रेसिडेंट कन्हैया कुमार पर जुर्माना लगाया था. अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाई करते हुए 13 छात्रों पर जुर्माना लगाया गया है. जुर्माना लगने के बाद इन छात्रों ने दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाया था. दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने अपीलीय अथॉरिटी पैनल के फैसले की जांच करने के कहा. एक सूत्र के मुताबिक, कुछ छात्रों की पेनाल्टी घटा दी गई है.

फरवरी 2016 में उमर खालिद, कन्हैया कुमार और अनिर्वान भट्टाचार्य पर देशद्रोह का आरोप लगा था. इसके बाद काफी विरोध-प्रदर्शन हुआ और खालिद और कन्हैया कुमार को बेल पर छोड़ा गया.

b

• सुनंदा पुष्कर की मौते के मामले में दिल्ली के पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट ने शशि थरूर को अग्रिम दे दी है.
• कोर्ट ने कांग्रेस सांसद थरूर को एक लाख रुपए के निजी मुचलके पर अग्रमि जमानत दी है.
• साथ ही कोर्ट ने थरूर के विदेश जाने पर भी रोक लगा दी है.
• अभी अच्छे दिन आने बाकी हैं????

आपको बता दें कि दिल्ली पुलिस ने अग्रिम जमानत का विरोध किया था. इससे पहले पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट ने शशि थरूर की अग्रिम जमानत याचिका पर बुधवार को अपना फैसला सुरक्षित रख लिया था. थरूर ने उनके खिलाफ आरोपी के तौर पर केस चलाए जाने के आदेश के बाद दिल्‍ली के पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट में अग्रिम जमानत के लिए आवेदन किया था.

शशि थरूर को इस बात का डर है कि 7 जुलाई को सुनवाई के दौरान उन्‍हें गिरफ्तार किया जा सकता है.

सुनंदा पुष्कर की मौत मामले में उनके पति शशि थरूर को कुछ दिन पहले ही सीबीआई की विशेष अदालत ने आरोपी माना है.

शशि थरूर को 498ए के तहत भी सजा हो सकती है. मालूम हो कि सुनंदा पुष्कर ने 8 जनवरी 2014 को अपने पति शशि थरूर को ईमेल में लिखा था कि, ‘मेरी जीने की इच्छा नहीं है. मैं सिर्फ मौत की कामना कर रही हूं.’ इस ईमेल के 9 दिन बाद सुनंदा दिल्ली के एक होटल में मृत मिली थीं.

इसके पहले सुनवाई के दौरान सरकारी वकील अतुल श्रीवास्तव ने कहा था कि सुनंदा की तीसरी शादी थी जिसको 3 साल 3 महीने हुए थे. जो चार्जशीट फाइल की गई है वह ‘अबेटमेंट फॉर सुसाइड’ और क्रुएलिटी के तहत ही दायर की गई है. चार्जशीट में पुलिस ने उस कविता का भी जिक्र किया है, जिसे खुद सुनंदा ने मौत से दो दिन पहले लिखा था. जिसका मतलब निकाला जा सकता है कि मौत से पहले वह काफी डिप्रेशन में थी.

कांग्रेस नेता पर आईपीसी की धारा 498 ए (क्रूरता) और 306 (आत्महत्या के लिये उकसाने) के आरोप लगाए गए हैं. धारा 498 ए के तहत अधिकतम तीन साल के कारावास की सजा का प्रावधान है जबकि धारा 306 के तहत अधिकतम 10 साल की जेल हो सकती है. दिल्ली पुलिस ने एक जनवरी 2015 को आईपीसी की धारा 302 के तहत अज्ञात लोगों के खिलाफ प्राथमिकी दर्ज की थी.

शशि थरूर को इस मामले में अभी तक गिरफ्तार नहीं किया गया है.