HC seeks govt.’s reply in case against L-G

Adjourns hearing of the case to August 23

The Madras High Court on Friday ordered notice to the Puducherry Chief Secretary on a public interest litigation petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) member T. Murugan, 63, seeking a direction to the Centre to recall Lieutenant Governor (L-G) Kiran Bedi.

Justices C.T. Selvam and N. Sathish Kumar ordered notice at the request of senior counsel AR. L. Sundaresan representing the petitioner and adjourned hearing on the case to August 23. The counsel said the government would be in a better position to explain the way in which the L-G was functioning.

Although the Central Government Standing Counsel V. Venkatesan, representing the Union Home Ministry, vehemently objected to any such order and questioned the maintainability of the case, the judges doubted whether the issue of maintainability could be raised in the light of recent Supreme Court judgment on Delhi L-G’s powers.

Earlier, Mr. Sundaresan accused Ms. Bedi of acting in an autocratic manner and against the tenets of the Constitution. He said the Puducherry L-G was supposed to act only on the aid and advice of the Cabinet as per the Constitution but the ground situation was vice-versa with Ms. Bedi imposing her views on the government.

“A separate WhatsApp group is run for officials and the Governor issues instructions to them directly. There is no official secrecy maintained in government functions and nothing is recorded in the files. She is expecting government elected by the people to be a puppet,” the counsel contended.

When Justice Selvam wanted to know how far the Supreme Court judgement in Delhi L-G’s case would be applicable to Puducherry, the counsel said it would be applicable squarely to the present case too and that was why the petitioner wants a person, “who was refusing to submit herself to the Constitution,” to be recalled by the Centre.

“Such a person cannot be allowed to continue in office even for a single moment. Her activities have been brought to the notice of the Central government but it has chosen to remain silent,” the counsel alleged.

In his affidavit, the petitioner had said that Ms. Bedi was appointed as L-G on May 29, 2016. “Right from the day of assumption of office, the third respondent (Ms. Bedi) had not respected the Constitution, the separation of powers and the procedures prescribed under it and has miserably failed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” he said.