How it happened: ACB, FIR, RIL and the Power Tussle in Delhi
It has been more than a week since the Supreme Court judgement came on July 4th. Aam Aadmi Party has already started working on issues related to public interest. But the fight to take control over the service department in Delhi continues. While Supreme Court judgement is not being implemented in Delhi, certain officers related to service department are not ready to work under AAP Delhi government (as directed by SC). At the same time central govt is planning to take the judgement for review in SC. While central government is not in mood to let AAP govt work in Delhi, they are also trying to keep them engaged in court proceedings. Services for Delhi residents are affected the most and Delhi Govt's milestone project of doorstep delivery of ration is also being stalled.
While going through the timeline of HC and SC judgement on Delhi administrative power issues, reports revealed that the power tussel started when AAP formed government in Delhi for the first time. Govt did not last long when Arvind Kejriwal resigned after 49 days. AAP won 67/70 seats in Delhi in 2015 but they continued to pay the price in terms of reduced administrative power in the state. This started in Feb 2014 when Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) Delhi registered a criminal case in the KG D6 field gas pricing against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) chairman Mukesh Ambani, petroleum minister M Veerappa Moily and former minister Murli Deora. At the same time, AAP govt also decided to pursue graft charges against Ex Delhi CM Sheila Dixit but the case against ex CM made less trouble than that against RIL chief Mukesh Ambani who was often seen with PM Modi during his foreign trips.
From allocating special projects to some inexperienced Mukesh Ambani owned companies to giving special status to his unestablished Jio Institute, many favours have been given to him by the politicians. As such, any action against Mukesh Ambani seemed quite impossible. Attempts to take away the powers of ACB began only after Delhi Govt filed the FIR against the RIL chief. Action against a corporate lobbyist can seriously harm the functioning of a political party supported by the business groups. This is particularly the case when funding of a political party comes from officially unknown sources. After initial attempts from the ACB to access original documents related to KG D6 basin scam, delayed cooperation from RIL and lengthy court rulings in the process of questioning the accused, ACB died a slow death and so did the case. At first, RIL moved HC in May 2014 quashing the FIR registered by ACB. RIL also challenged a 1993 notification of the centre giving power to ACB Delhi. Read the following incidents (source: India Today) including court hearings, party arguments and other developments since May 2014.
May 2, 2014: RIL moves HC for quashing of FIR and challenging a 1993 notification of the Center giving power to Delhi government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to probe union government employees.
May 8, 2014: Centre moves HC opposing FIR against the ministers contending that ACB has no powers or jurisdiction to probe.
May 9, 2014: HC issues notice to Delhi government on the plea to quash FIR against the ministers. HC allowed ACB to continue with its probe.
May 20, 2014: HC asks Centre, RIL to cooperate with ACB probe.
Aug 9, 2014: ACB tells HC that’s it has powers to lodge FIR in gas pricing case.
Aug 19, 2014: ACB tells HC it cannot probe the gas pricing case against RIL and a former UPA minister as a July 23, 2014 notification of Centre has taken away its jurisdiction to investigate central government employees.
Oct 16, 2014: Delhi government tells HC its ACB can prosecute RIL and ministers.
Oct 28, 2014: HC gives time to Centre to clarify on ACB’s powers.
Dec 4, 2014: RIL argues in HC that State probing Centre’s decision on gas pricing is absurd.
May 25, 2015: HC says ACB has jurisdiction to arrest policemen who come under Centre. It says the Centre’s May 21 notification limiting ACB’s powers was “suspect”.
May 26, 2015: PIL in HC against Centre’s May 21 notification giving powers to LG to appoint bureaucrats in Delhi.
May 28, 2015: Delhi government moves HC on Centre’s notification on LG’s powers. Centre moves HC against HC’s May 25 order terming as “suspect” its notification.
May 29, 2015: HC asks LG to consider Delhi government’s proposals on shifting of nine bureaucrats from one post to another.
Jun 10, 2015: HC refuses to stay MHA notification on ACB power.
Jun 27, 2015: Delhi government moves HC to restrain LG appointee ACB chief M K Meena from entering anti-graft body’s office.
Jan 27, 2016: Union government tells HC that Delhi is under Centre’s control and not full-fledged state.
Apr 5, 2016: AAP government asks HC to refer to larger bench petitions on powers of LG on the governance of Delhi.
Apr 6, 2016: Delhi government tells HC it was competent to set up a commission to probe allegations of corruption in awarding a license to conduct CNG fitness tests.
Apr 19, 2016: AAP government withdraws from SC its plea seeking setting up of a larger bench in HC.
May 24, 2016: HC reserves order on AAP government’s plea for a stay on proceedings on the petitions arising out of its stand-off with LG over powers to appoint bureaucrats in the national capital and other issues.
May 30, 2016: HC turns down AAP government’s request to first decide its stay application.
Jul 1, 2016: SC agrees to hear AAP government’s plea seeking a direction that HC be restrained from delivering judgement on issues, including the scope of powers of the city government to exercise its authority in performing public functions.
Jul 4, 2016: Justice J S Khehar of SC recuses from hearing AAP govt’s plea on the declaration of powers of Delhi as a state.
Jul 5, 2016: Justice L Nageshwar Rao of SC also recuses from hearing Delhi government’s plea.
Jul 8, 2016: SC refuses to entertain Delhi government plea to first decide the preliminary issue as to whether it has the jurisdiction over disputes between the Centre and the state or is it “exclusively” triable by the apex court.
Aug 4, 2016: HC says LG is the administrative head of National Capital Territory and AAP government’s contention that he is bound to act on the advice of Council of Ministers was “without substance”.
Feb 15, 2017: SC refers to constitution bench the pleas on Delhi-Centre row over governance.
Nov 2, 2017: Constitution bench of SC commences hearing.
Nov 8, 2017: SC observes that responsibilities conferred upon LG are not absolute.
Nov 14, 2017: SC raises a question if constitutional scheme on the division of executive powers between the Centre and the states can be made applicable to the union territory of Delhi.
Nov 21, 2017: Centre opposes AAP government’s submissions in the SC, says Delhi has been accorded “special status” among union territories but that does not make it a state.
Dec 6, 2017: SC reserves judgment on a batch of pleas on Delhi-Centre power tussle after hearing arguments for 15 days.
July 4, 2018: SC says LG does not have independent decision-making powers and is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
No comments