Delhi: Statehood- legal, constitutional issues - Revision history

Jyoti: /* 2023/ SC: the legislature has control over bureaucracy */

2023-08-21T19:07:35Z

‎2023/ SC: the legislature has control over bureaucracy

Jyoti at 14:39, 14 June 2023

2023-06-14T14:39:33Z

Show changes

Jyoti: /* 2023/ SC: the legislature has control over bureaucracy */

2023-06-12T08:35:18Z

‎2023/ SC: the legislature has control over bureaucracy

Jyoti: /* 2023/ SC: the legislature has control over bureaucracy */

2023-06-03T17:43:58Z

‎2023/ SC: the legislature has control over bureaucracy

Jyoti: /* The final word: SC gives Centre upper hand/ 2019 */

2023-06-03T17:42:56Z

‎The final word: SC gives Centre upper hand/ 2019

Pdewan: /* 2015-19: a summary of the LG-CM tussle */

2023-01-14T20:49:11Z

‎2015-19: a summary of the LG-CM tussle

Pdewan at 20:46, 14 January 2023

2023-01-14T20:46:58Z

Pdewan: /* 2018: Delhi govt dubs LG’s panel on CCTVs illegal */

2023-01-14T20:44:03Z

‎2018: Delhi govt dubs LG’s panel on CCTVs illegal

Pdewan: /* CM’s residence: prohibitory orders around */

2023-01-14T20:43:31Z

‎CM’s residence: prohibitory orders around

Pdewan: /* CM’s residence: prohibitory orders around */

2023-01-14T20:43:09Z

‎CM’s residence: prohibitory orders around

@@ Line 402: / Line 402: @@
  “The chief secretary and the secretary to the department concerned shall be responsible for compliance with the provisions of this Act and the rules framed under Section 44, and when either of them considers that there has been any material departure from the same, instead of giving effect to such departure, he or they shall personally bring it to the notice of the minister-incharge, chief minister and the lieutenant governor immediately in writing. The central government may, by notification published in the official gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this part. Every rule made by the central government under this ordinance shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session.”
-[[Category:India|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+==Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023==
-DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSU]]
+[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=08_08_2023_004_001_cap_TOI   Atul Mathur, August 8, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|D DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
-DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISS]]
+New Delhi: The legislation that replaces the ordinance on control of services in the capital and overrides the Supreme Court’s verdict in favour of the elected state government on the matter gives more power to the lieutenant governor, thus bolstering the central government’s hold on Delhi’s administration.
 [[Category:Pages with broken file links|DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
 ]]
-[[Category:Places|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+[[Category:Places|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSU
-DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSU]]
+]]
 =Demarcating turf=

@@ Line 291: / Line 291: @@
 According to this provision, the NCT of Delhi will have an Administrator and a Legislative Assembly. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Legislative Assembly, “shall have the power to make laws for the whole or any part of the NCT with respect to any of the matters in the State List or Concurrent List in so far as any such matter is applicable to Union territories” except on the subjects of police, public order, and land.
-[[Category:India|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+===Negating SC order, Centre brings ordinance on officer postings===
-DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSU]]
+[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=20_05_2023_001_005_cap_TOI   May 20, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|D DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
-DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISS]]
+New Delhi: In a big, dramatic move, the Centre promulgated an ordinance to nullify the recent Supreme Court order that had given Delhi government control over officers dealing with subjects other than public order, police and land, and assigned the superintending jurisdiction over the entire officer cadre in the National Capital Territory to the lieutenant governor.
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
-]]
+The Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, has created a National Capital Civil Service Authority to deal with service conditions, transfers and postings of officers. Although the committee will be headed by the chief minister of Delhi in his ex-officio capacity, it will also have the chief secretary and the principal home secretary of Delhi as ex-officio members with equal say. Differences of opinion are to be referred to the LG, whose decision will be final.
-[[Category:Places|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+As members of the central services, over whom the Centre exercises disciplinary jurisdiction, the chief secretary and the principal home secretary can be expected to be more amenable to the sensitivities of the central regime.
-DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSU]]
 [[Category:India|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

@@ Line 235: / Line 235: @@
 ==2023/ SC: the legislature has control over bureaucracy==
-[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/dispute-centre-delhi-govt-supreme-court-explained-8603403/  May 12, 2023: ''The Indian Express'']
+[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/dispute-centre-delhi-govt-supreme-court-explained-8603403/   Khadija Khan, May 12, 2023: ''The Indian Express'']
 The Supreme Court today (May 11) ruled unanimously in favour of Delhi government on the issue of who controls the bureaucracy in the national capital. The 5-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, held that the legislature has control over bureaucrats in administration of services, except in areas outside the legislative powers of the National Capital Territory (NCT). There are three areas outside the control of Delhi government: public order, police and land.
@@ Line 289: / Line 290: @@
 According to this provision, the NCT of Delhi will have an Administrator and a Legislative Assembly. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Legislative Assembly, “shall have the power to make laws for the whole or any part of the NCT with respect to any of the matters in the State List or Concurrent List in so far as any such matter is applicable to Union territories” except on the subjects of police, public order, and land.
 [[Category:India|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:42, 3 June 2023
Line 234:		Line 234:


		+	==2023/ SC: the legislature has control over bureaucracy==
		+	[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/dispute-centre-delhi-govt-supreme-court-explained-8603403/ May 12, 2023: ''The Indian Express'']
		+
		+	The Supreme Court today (May 11) ruled unanimously in favour of Delhi government on the issue of who controls the bureaucracy in the national capital. The 5-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, held that the legislature has control over bureaucrats in administration of services, except in areas outside the legislative powers of the National Capital Territory (NCT). There are three areas outside the control of Delhi government: public order, police and land.
		+
		+	The CJI said an ideal conclusion would be that the Delhi government ought to have control over services, subject to exclusion of subjects which are out of its legislative domain. If services are excluded from its legislative and executive domain, the ministers and the executive, who are charged with formulating policies in the territory of NCTD would be excluded from controlling the civil service officers who implement such executive decisions, he said.
		+
		+	The CJI said, “The legislative and executive power of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) over entry 41 shall not extend over to services related to public order, police and land. However, legislative and executive power over services such as IAS or joint cadre services, which are relevant for the for the implementation for the policies and the vision of NCTD in terms of day to day administration of the region shall lie with the NCTD.”
		+
		+	The question of the regulation of services was a major part of the overall dispute between the elected government in Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) nominated by the Centre. The legal battle has been protracted, and the verdict of the Supreme Court will have far-reaching implications. Almost five years ago, another Constitution Bench of the court had ruled in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party-led state government in a similar tussle.
		+
		+	The CJI-led Bench in the present matter also comprises Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha. The verdict is unanimous, and has been written by the CJI. Here’s the background of the case.
		+
		+	''' First, how did the matter come before the CJI-led Bench? '''
		+
		+	On May 6, 2022, a three-judge Bench headed by then CJI N V Ramana, acting on a plea by the Centre, had referred this case to a larger Bench. The three-judge Bench had decided that the question of control over administrative services required “further examination”.
		+
		+	The Centre had sought the reference to a larger Bench on April 27, 2022, arguing that it needed the power to make transfers and posting of officers in Delhi on account of it being the national capital and the “face of nation”.
		+
		+	The court had agreed that the limited question relating to the scope of the legislative and executive powers of the Centre and NCT of Delhi, with respect to the term “services”, would need an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution. Article 145(3) deals with the setting up of a Constitution Bench comprising at least five judges “for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation” of the Constitution.
		+
		+	The three-judge Bench had noted that the primary contention in the case related to the interpretation of Article 239 AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, which deals with special provisions for the NCT of Delhi. In its order of May 6, 2022, the court said: “The Constitution Bench of this Court, while interpreting Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution [in 2018], did not find any occasion to specifically interpret the impact of the wordings of the same with respect to Entry 41 in the State List (State public services; State Public Service Commission).”
		+
		+	''' Who had filed the case before the three-judge Bench? '''
		+
		+	The case had come before the three-judge Bench because a two-judge Bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan had, earlier in 2019, delivered a split verdict on the issue of services.
		+
		+	This two-judge Bench had in its decision settled several issues relating to the powers of the LG, but on the issue of control over services, the two judges on the Bench had ruled differently. Once the split verdict was passed in 2019, as per procedure, the case came up before the then CJI for listing so that it could be heard afresh by a larger Bench. Split verdicts by two-judge Benches are not common, but not unheard-of either.
		+
		+	''' So what did the judges on the two-judge Bench hold? '''
		+
		+	Justice Bhushan held that the Delhi government has no power over administrative services at all.
		+
		+	Justice Sikri, however, was of the view that “transfers and postings of Secretaries, HODs and other officers in the scale of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and above can be done by the Lieutenant Governor and the file submitted to him directly”, but “for other levels, including DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service) officers, the files can be routed through the Chief Minister to LG”.
		+
		+	The 2019 verdict also dealt with five other issues arising from the power tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government, relating to the power of the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Delhi government to investigate corruption cases against central government officials and appoint commissions of inquiry.
		+
		+	''' And what led to these issues coming before the two-judge Bench? '''
		+
		+	The 2019 verdict was essentially delivered to decide the contentious issues based on the law settled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in 2018 [to which (then) CJI Ramana referred in 2022].
		+
		+	In 2018, a five-judge Bench comprising then CJI Dipak Misra and Justices Sikri, Bhushan, A M Khanwilkar, and (now CJI) Chandrachud interpreted Article 239AA of the Constitution which contains special provisions for the national capital.
		+	The court laid down broad parameters for the governance of Delhi; it held that although Delhi cannot be given the status of a state, the powers of the LG can be curtailed as he has no “independent decision-making power” and has to act on the aid and advice of the elected government.
		+
		+	“Thus, in this hue, the Constitution Bench has also accepted that the Lieutenant Governor is to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all his acts, except those functions where the Lieutenant Governor is permitted to exercise his own discretion,” the court held.
		+
		+	The court also restricted the jurisdiction of the LG to matters involving land, police, and public order, while holding that for all other matters, he will have to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
		+
		+	Prior to this, the Delhi High Court had, in its judgment of August 4, 2017 on the same issue, held that for administration purposes of the NCT, the LG is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in every matter. On appeal, the SC in 2017, referred the matter to decide the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution.
		+
		+	''' Finally, what is Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution? '''
		+
		+	Article 239AA was inserted in the Constitution by the 69th Amendment Act, 1991. It conferred Special Status upon Delhi following the recommendations of the S Balakrishnan Committee that was set up in 1987 to look into Delhi’s demands for statehood.
		+
		+	According to this provision, the NCT of Delhi will have an Administrator and a Legislative Assembly. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Legislative Assembly, “shall have the power to make laws for the whole or any part of the NCT with respect to any of the matters in the State List or Concurrent List in so far as any such matter is applicable to Union territories” except on the subjects of police, public order, and land.

	[[Category:India\|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES		[[Category:India\|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

@@ Line 233: / Line 233: @@
 Justice Bhushan, however, outright rejected the claim of the AAP government over services and said there is no occasion for the Delhi government to exercise any executive powers with regard to services.
-The Supreme Court verdict dampened spirits of the Aam Aadmi Party government even though it was the day it completed four years in office.
+[[Category:India|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSU]]
-The elected government was expecting that the SC verdict would give the power to post and transfer officers and also place the Anti-Corruption Branch under its jurisdiction. Not long after it assumed office, the AAP government had a turf war with the Centre over the control of ACB.
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|D DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISS]]
-In the initial months, the elected government had both services and ACB under its jurisdiction. But differences arose in May 2015 between the government and the LG over routing of files. Chief minister Arvind Kejriwal told officials not to bother the LG’s office with all files, but then LG Najeeb Jung hit back and directed ministers and official to refer all files to him.
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
+]]
-The appointment of bureaucrat Shakuntala Gamlin as acting chief secretary by lieutenant governor Najeeb Jung, which was opposed by Kejriwal, sparked another confrontation. Gloves were soon off in this battle that continued to get bizarre by the day until a senior IAS officer found his office at the Delhi Secretariat locked under orders of the AAP government. Both LG and Kejriwal had to knock on the President’s door.
+[[Category:Places|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSU]]
-To settle the turf war, the Centre issued a notification, leaving the services and ACB under the jurisdiction of the LG and virtually clipping the wings of the AAP government. But the battle raged and bureaucrats found themselves caught in the crossfire. In December 2015, bureaucrats went on a mass leave to protest against the alleged harassment of officers caught in the crossfire.
-−
-Soon, the Delhi government became a not-so-coveted destination for bureaucrats. Apart from governance, the biggest casualty of the tussle was the morale of the bureaucrats.
-−
-The appointment of several IAS officers turned into friction points between the LG and elected government, and the situation turned worse when chief secretary Anshu Prakash was allegedly assaulted during a meeting at the CM’s residence in February last year. It was over distribution of rations. The incident triggered a major governance crisis as IAS officers united in protest and boycotted meetings with the CM and his ministers. Later, Kejriwal sat on dharna for nine days inside LG house with his ministers, seeking an end to the crisis.
-−
-“A trust deficit still exists between the elected government and the bureaucrats, which is not an ideal situation for effective governance,” said an IAS officer.
-−
-Several officers have opted for central deputation, leading to a shortage of IAS officers in the Delhi government.
-−
-And yet, despite all this, the government had celebrated its third anniversary with a mega event last year. This year, there seem to be no such plans.
 =Demarcating turf=

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {| class="wikitable"
@@ Line 7: / Line 9: @@
 After the formal launch of their online archival encyclopædia, <br/> readers who wish to update or add further details can do so on <br/> a ‘Part II’ of this article.  </div>
 |}
-[[Category:India|D]]
-[[Category:Places|D]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|D ]]
 =Statehood=
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com//Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=LEARING-WITH-THE-TIMES-NDA-govts-03-Bill-12012015012033 ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 1,286: / Line 1,288: @@
 =See also=
 [[Parliamentary secretaries: India]]
@@ Line 1,306: / Line 1,310: @@
 DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE]]
 [[Category:Places|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
 DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES]]

@@ Line 770: / Line 770: @@
 In his order, Sisodia had made it clear that no instructions, verbal or written, will be issued by officers of the department without his approval. “No legal advice shall be given by the law department without the approval of the law minister.“
-The AAP government’s tussle with the lieutenant governor’s office saw yet another flashpoint on Thursday when the former declared a highlevel committee formed by lieutenant governor Anil Baijal to prepare a framework for installing, operating and monitoring CCTV cameras in the city as “illegal” and, thus, “null and void”.
+[[Category:India|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES]]
-Principal secretary (home) Manoj Parida, who was appointed chairman of the committee and asked by LG to submit his report within 30 days, has now been directed by PWD minister Satyendar Jain not to proceed with the task. Deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia called the committee “unconstitutional” and alleged that LG was trying to “obstruct” the CCTV project for which almost all formalities had been completed and the work order was likely to be given soon.
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|D DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES]]
-“LG wants to form the standard operating procedure without talking to the elected government. This is an attempt to put the project in cold storage. The committee was formed under a conspiracy to stop the work on (the) CCTV project,” the deputy chief minister said at a press conference where he advised LG to focus on law and order rather than “halting” projects of the AAP government.
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
+]]
-The development coincides with Jain shooting off a strongly worded letter to LG on Thursday. He wrote: “The committee set up by you is illegal, unconstitutional and has been set up with the sole objective of obstructing the CCTV project.” He pointed out that “under the Constitution, LG’s job is to do good policing and prevent crime. Please concentrate on your job. It is the elected government’s job to install CCTV cameras. Please allow us to do our job”. Jain continued in the same vein: “You have sought to stretch the logic that CCTV is covered under law and order. By that logic, anything and everything will be covered under law and order.”
+[[Category:Places|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES]]
-The tussle over this particular issue has been continuing for some time. Last month, the lieutenant governor held a meeting with officers of Delhi government officers and Delhi Police on the project status. The meeting prompted sharp reaction from the government, with Sisodia calling it “overstepping of the constitutional jurisdiction” by LG.
-−
-Installing CCTV cameras in the city was one of AAP’s key pre-poll promises. Though the project has progressed at snail’s space, the government in February finalised a concessionaire to install 1.4 lakh
-−
-CCTV cameras in different parts of the city. In 2015, cabinet approval was given to a Rs 130-crore project, the cost of which spiked to Rs 571.40 crore in 2018. This gave the Opposition ammunition to attack the AAP government. The project is now in the final stages of being awarded.
-−
-In his letter to LG, Jain pointed out that CCTV cameras were being successfully installed in the New Delhi Municipal Council areas. Under this model, RWAs, police, local residents and the company installing the cameras together decide the locations. “We will borrow NDMC’s standard operating procedure and the implementation model rather than inventing a new one,” Jain wrote.
-−
-The LG office didn’t respond to calls and SMSes from TOI over the issue.
 ==2021: Government means LG==

@@ Line 650: / Line 650: @@
 Second, this political squabble is far from a constitutional crisis. It is a case of `ambition counteracting ambition'  the key foundation of a government based on checks and balances, and a sign that Indian democracy is alive and well.
-''' Sec 144 near CM home: Cops say order illegal '''
+[[Category:India|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES]]
-Delhi Police asked the sub-divisional magistrate of Civil Lines to immediately withdraw the “illegal“ prohibitory order issued by him under Section 144 of CrPC banning protests and public meetings around chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's house and adjoining areas.
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|D DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES]]
-Lieutenant governor Najeeb Jung is learned to have sought an explanation from the SDM for acting beyond his jurisdiction while civil society members criticised the move coming from a CM seen as an “advocate of protesting outside people's homes“.
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE]]
-Kejriwal's mentor and anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare said huge gatherings may pose a problem but no one should stop small gatherings from protesting.
+[[Category:Places|DDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESDELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
+DELHI: STATEHOOD- LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES]]
-In his order issued on August 2, SDM B K Jha had banned protests, processions and dharnas at Flag Staff Road, Civil Lines and in the neighbouring areas, saying they “may create serious law and order problems“.
-−
-In a letter to the SDM, DCP (north) Madhur Verma said the action amounted to interference in the working of Delhi Police. Citing a Union home ministry notification of July 2, 1978, Verma said the powers and duties of the district magistrate with regard to Section 144 of CrPC within Delhi lie with the police commissio ner. Hence, the August 2 notification was “beyond the domain of powers of SDM in Delhi“. Police have also sought legal opinion on the issue.
-−
-Jung went further to say , “The SDM has no power to do so and he will be pulled up for this. He is liable for action for violating the law. The legal position is clear: only the area DCP has the power to impose and implement Section 144 of CrPC.“ The ban drew protests from civil society members as well. “I expected Arvind Kejriwal to provide more democratic space for protests. He was the one who had risen from protests,“ said Aruna Roy .
-−
-“It was expected of Arvind Kejriwal, since he has gone back on many of his promises,“ social activist Nikhil Dey said. “ As a product of protests, he should have allowed peaceful protesters to gather outside his house. That would have set an example. Arvind himself was an advocate of protesting outside people's homes.“
-−
-Jha's order had prohibited holding of public meetings, assembly of five or more people, processions, demonstrations, dharnas and speeches at Flag Staff Road, Civil Lines and in the neighbouring areas, including IP College and Tiraha at Shyamanath Marg. “It has been reported that political parties and pressure groups may hold protests, demonstrations... in front of, near or around the residence of the CM, which may create serious law and order problems,“ the order said. These protests need to be prohibited in order to “prevent public nuisance, obstruction to traffic and persons, danger to human lives or safety and public property“, it added.
 ==MLAs' salaries: Centre vs. state==