New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the central government on a plea by the Aam Aadmi Party challenging the decision of not dissolving the Delhi assembly as recommended by the outgoing AAP government.
The plea challenged the presidential proclamation placing the Delhi assembly in suspended animation and not dissolving it as was recommended by the then Arvind Kejriwal government.
Arvind Kejriwal. File pic
A bench of Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice Dipak Misra said the notice was being issued as a constitutional issue was involved, and it was not issuing notice to the political parties as it was not a political contest.
At the outset of the hearing as senior counsel Fali Nariman, appearing for AAP, sought to address the court on the petition, the court observed that the "issue is little digressed by certain averment that are political in nature". Certain prayers were not necessary, it said.
Challenging the presidential proclamation, Nariman told the court that since the Bharatiya Janata Party, the largest political party in the Delhi assembly, had refused to form an alternate government, there was no justification whatsoever to keep the assembly in suspended animation and not dissolve it.
The court was told whether Lt. Governor could make a recommendation that was different from the recommendation of dissolving the Delhi assembly made by the then outgoing Kejriwal government.
Arguing for simultaneous election of Delhi assembly along with that of the Lok Sabha, Nariman sought to take the court through the sequence of events starting with the formation of AAP in 2012 onwards.
"There is no good reason for to keep the assembly in the suspended animation," Nariman told the court pointing out no reasons have been assigned for the decision of keeping the Delhi assembly in suspended animation.
At this, Justice Lodha said: "Is it incumbent that some reasons have to be disclosed for the president to arrive at a decision?"
Answering the poser by the court in affirmative, Nariman said, "We have to see the facts."
The court was told that when an assembly is prorogued, then government continues to function and ministers keep functioning as Justice Lodha sought distinction between placing the assembly in suspended animation and proroguing the assembly.
Giving 10 days time to the central government to respond the AAP plea, the court directed the listing of the matter March 7.