Puducherry L-G challenges Madras HC verdict, seeks urgent hearing in Supreme Court

The Solicitor General appearing for Puducherry Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) on Wednesday sought an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court of a challenge to a Madras High Court decision curbing the L-G powers to interfere in the day-to-day administration of the Union Territory when an elected government is in place.

Appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said “the governance has come to a standstill”.

The High Court in April had held that incessant interference from the L-G would amount to running a “parallel government”.

“The Central government as well as the Administrator [the term used in the Constitution to refer to the L-G] should be true to the concept of democratic principles. Otherwise, the constitutional scheme of the country of being democratic and republic would be defeated,” the High Court said.

The 150-page judgement had distinguished the significant differences in the powers conferred on the legislatures of Puducherry and Delhi under Articles 239A and 239AA of the Constitution.

Unlike Article 239AA which imposes several restrictions on the legislature of Delhi, no such restrictions had been imposed explicitly in the case of Puducherry under Article 239A, the High Court had held.

“The above Article symbolises the supremacy of the Legislature above the Administrator in case of the Union Territory of Puducherry.”

The judge held that government secretaries of the Puducherry administration were required to report to the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister on all official matters.

The High Court had also disapproved of the alleged practice of government officials being part of social media groups through which the L-G was issuing instructions to them for redress of public grievances and reminded them that as per rules, they were bound to use only authorised medium of communication when it came to issues related to administration.

The judgement was delivered while allowing a petition filed by Congress MLA K. Lakshminarayanan in 2017, and quashing two clarifications issued by the Union Home Ministry that year with regard to the powers of the L-G. The judgement had held that those communications had been issued without reference to the constitutional provisions and other laws.

The High Court had dealt with the provisions of Rules of Business of the Government of Pondicherry, of 1963, the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1978, the Government of Puducherry (Custody of Public Money) Rules, 2006, the Government of Puducherry Accounting Rules, 2006, and the periodical orders issued by the Central government.