L-G rejects Cabinet decision on lawyers for riots, anti-CAA cases

Baijal asks to notify panel suggested by Delhi Police instead

July 30, 2020 11:56 pm | Updated 11:56 pm IST - New Delhi

Lieutenant-Governor Anil Baijal on Thursday rejected the decision of the Delhi Cabinet regarding the selection of a panel of lawyers to represent it in cases of Delhi riots and anti-CAA protest in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

The L-G has issued orders to the Delhi government to notify the panel of lawyers suggested by Delhi Police instead of the panel of lawyers selected by the Home Department. As per the Constitution the Delhi government is now bound to implement the L-G’s order in this regard, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s office said in a statement.

“The Hon’ble Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi has rejected the decision of the Delhi Cabinet by exercising his special powers under Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution. Following this development, the Delhi government is compelled to issue an interim order to approve the panel of Delhi Police,” the statement said.

The Delhi government held its Cabinet meeting on Tuesday to decide on the appointment of the panel of lawyers in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.

The Delhi Police had sent a proposal to the Delhi government regarding the appointment of six senior lawyers, including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Aman Lekhi as Special Counsel in the High Court and the Supreme Court in 85 cases related to the riots and anti-CAA protests.

The Delhi government rejected the proposal stating that its standing counsel, Rahul Mehra, and his team were capable of contesting these. This was followed by disagreement on Mr. Baijal’s part who then sought the proposal sent by the Delhi Home Minister, using special powers.

On Tuesday, the Cabinet, sources said, observed that there had been allegations that the investigations of Delhi Police in riots cases were “biased and not impartial”. The judiciary had also made adverse remarks against investigations by Delhi Police on “several occasions”. Sources claimed the Cabinet also termed the L-G’s “repeated expression” of his difference of opinion on the matter unfortunate.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.