“As far as the government is concerned, there is nothing new in what the MHA has stated other than being a reiteration of established norms,” Chief Minister V. Narayanasamy said.
When contacted by The Hindu , Mr. Narayanasamy sought to clarify that his stand from the outset (of the fallout between the Lt. Governor and the administration) was not that the office of the Lt. Governor did not have the right to call for files in any matter (as spelt out in Rule 21 (5), but only that due procedure had to followed in moving files and official documents out of the Secretariat.
“There are established channels through which files move and these were being flouted...which was our point of objection,” he said.
As for the MHA letter relying on the Delhi High Court ruling in August 2016, upholding the administrative powers of the Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Narayanasamy said he had been making it clear ever since the judgment came that the provisions in the Constitution that bind the national capital territory of Delhi and Union Territory of Puducherry were not the same.
Mr. Narayanasamy also wondered why the MHA clarification was silent on the queries as to whether the L-G can write letters to judicial members of the NGT, seeking action against the government or order release of the mascot-elephant of a temple merely on an objection raised by an NGO.
