Can't Entertain Every Dispute Between Delhi Government And LG: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court questioned on Friday why "every dispute" between the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor ends up before them.

The Apex Court asked the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) to approach the High Court with its grievance instead.

The Supreme Court was approached by the DCPCR regarding the alleged freezing of its funds.

A bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud observed that every disagreement, regardless of its nature, between the Government of the NCT of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor is being presented as a petition under Article 226.

"What is happening is, every dispute, all and sundry, between the Government of the NCT of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor is coming here as a (Article) 226 petition," the CJI-led bench said.

Article 226 of the Constitution deals with power of the high courts to issue certain writs.

The bench, which included Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted that on Thursday they dealt with a petition from the Delhi government, which contested Lt Governor V K Saxena's decision to terminate the services of all civil defence volunteers working as marshals in DTC buses.

"Go to the Delhi High Court. Why should we entertain a petition under (Article) 32 here," the bench told senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was appearing for the DCPCR.

Sankaranarayanan stated that the petition lodged by the commission distinguishes itself from previous conflicts between the Delhi government and the Lt Governor that have reached the Supreme Court.

"This is a commission and the commission's money has been frozen," he said.

"Now go to the high court," the CJI said.

In presenting his case, Sankaranarayanan asserted that the commission's funds cannot be frozen. He questioned, "How can six million children of the state be told that not a penny is going to come to the commission".

"That is why high courts are there," the bench told him and asked, "Why are you bucking the Delhi High Court?"

"Everything between the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor is coming here every two days. Bus marshal scheme was discontinued and we got a petition under (Article) 32," the CJI said.

Sankaranarayanan stated that the DCPCR operates independently and that its members' terms have now concluded.

He said at present, the commission was not in a position to approach the high court afresh.

"Considering the nature of the grievance which is being addressed before this court by the DCPCR, we are of the considered view that a petition under Article 226 would be the appropriate remedy," the bench observed.

With regard to Sankaranarayanan's submission on the end of the commission members' tenure, the bench instructed the Supreme Court registry to transfer these proceedings to the Delhi High Court.

While disposing of the petition, it said the plea shall be re-numbered as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.