Order restraining Pondy L-G challenged

The appeal was moved after the Supreme Court refused to hear her direct appeal against the single judge order dated April 30 bypassing the division bench of the high court.

On Friday, when the condone delay application moved by Bedi came up for hearing, a division bench of Justice Vineeth Kothari and Justice C V Karthikeyan permitted her to move the appeal, as the Apex Court has already granted her liberty to approach the division bench. The bench then directed the registry to number the appeal and list it for hearing.

The single judge in his 150-page judgment while highlighting the significant differences in the powers conferred on the legislatures of Puducherry and Delhi under Articles 239A and 239AA of the Constitution, had said “Unlike Article 239AA, which imposes several restrictions on the legislature of Delhi, no such restrictions had been imposed explicitly on Puducherry under Article 239A”

 Also, observing that Article 239 symbolises the supremacy of the Legislature above the Administrator in the case of the Union Territory of Puducherry, the judgment had held that government secretaries of the Puducherry administration were required to report to the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister in all official matters and not to L-G.

The single judge’s order was based on a plea moved by Congress MLA K Lakshminarayanan challenging the communications from the Home Ministry vesting powers on the L-G. He had cited instances of interference in the government’s day-to-day affairs by Bedi, forcing government officials to be in WhatsApp groups, interfering in financial matters, holding review meeting with officials, and thereby bypassing the elected government.

The Union Home Ministry in its appeal said, the single judge erred in holding that the petitioner has locus standi to move such plea since the proceedings in the petition moved by the MLA was more in the nature of seeking clarification to the communication given by the Union home ministry to the Puducherry government. “When the government has not questioned the communication as illegal, it is not open to a private individual to question the internal communication,” the appeal said.

Also noting that it is wrong to assimilate union territory into a state when the constitution itself recognises a clear distinction between the two, the plea said the present issue concerns the exercise of executive power in the Puducherry government and in dealing with the same, the single judge misdirects himself by referring in detail to provisions concerning the conduct of legislative business prescribed for the legislature of the state.