Madras HC links validity of Puducherry government decisions to pending appeal

CHENNAI: The Madras high court on Thursday made it clear that decisions made either by the elected Puducherry government or its Lieutenant-Governor Kiran Bedi would be subject to final outcome of the appeal pending in the court on the latter’s powers to interfere in the decisions of the former.
A division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice P Velmurugan made the observation while hearing appeals moved both by the Union government and Kiran Bedi challenging the single judge’s order restraining her from interfering in the day-to-day affairs of the territorial government.
In August, when the appeals were moved, the then division bench had denied interim relief to Bedi by refusing to pass an interim stay against the single judge’s order.
When the plea came up for hearing on Thursday, additional solicitor-general of India Aman Lekhi, senior advocates Arvind Datar and A L Somayaji appeared for the Centre and Bedi. Original petitioner and Puducherry legislator K Lakshminarayanan was represented by senior advocates G Masilamani and V T Gopalan. Recording their appearances, the bench posted the appeal to October 31 for final hearing.
The issue pertains to a plea moved by Lakshminarayanan of the Congress, challenging the communications from the home ministry vesting powers on the LG. In the petition, he had cited instances of interference in the government’s day-to-day affairs by the lieutenant governor, forcing government officials to be on WhatsApp groups, interfering in financial matters, holding review meeting with officials and thereby bypassing the elected government.
Allowing the plea, a single judge of the court had observed that the elected government functioning through a council of ministers could not be defeated by the acts of an administrator who is also functioning under the provisions of the Constitution.
The judge had held that the powers of the lieutenant governor to act as an administrator is restricted and applicable only in certain circumstances. Challenging the order, the Union home ministry in its appeal said the single judge had erred in holding that the writ petitioner had locus standi to move such plea.
“The proceedings in the writ petition are in the nature of clarification to the communication given by the Union home ministry to the government of Puducherry. When the government has not questioned the communication as illegal, it is not open to a private individual to question the internal communication,” it added.