Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by Vijender Gupta, leader of the opposition (LOP) in the Legislative Assembly seeking to issue an appropriate direction to direct respondent 1 and 2 to forward the 14 CAG Reports in a time bound manner to the Respondent 3 and further direct Respondent 3 to take all necessary and consequential action for discharge of their Constitutional obligation under Article 151(2) for summoning the special sitting of the Legislative Assembly and to table those reports before the Legislative Assembly of Delhi in a time bound manner. Sachin Datta, J., declined to accept the prayer at this stage as the current Legislative Assembly is at the fag end of its current term and directed the respondents to take adequate steps once the new Legislative Assembly is constituted.
The grievance articulated in the present petition is that the Chief Minister, Government of NCT of Delhi (respondent no.2) has been remiss in not forwarding the 14 CAG reports to the Speaker (respondent 3), and that the consequent non-tabling of these 14 CAG Reports before the Legislative Assembly of Delhi amounts to a serious infraction of mandatory constitutional requirements. Article 151(2) mandates that CAG Reports relating to the accounts of a State shall be submitted to the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor, who “shall cause them to be laid before the Legislature of the State”.
Aggrieved by the inaction of the Government of NCT of Delhi, the petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Department of Finance, Government of NCT of Delhi to send the CAG Reports to the Lieutenant Governor as mandated under Article 151(2). In the proceedings dated 12-12-2024, the respondents’ counsel informed that there had been some movement of the file in relation to the CAG Reports. Consequently, an additional affidavit came to be filed by Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (respondent 4), however, the CAG Reports continued to languish and till the filing of the present petition, had not even been forwarded to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
The Court noted that laying the Reports of CAG in the legislature concerned is in the nature of a mandatory constitutional imperative. It is the means through which the elected representatives are entitled to have access to the CAG Reports and thereby hold the Government of the day accountable in the field of financial administration. Although no time period is prescribed under Section 48 of the GNCTD Act to table the Reports before the Legislative Assembly, it would be subversive of the constitutional mandate to withhold these reports from the legislature for an inordinately long period after the same have been forwarded by the CAG to the concerned government, in accordance with Regulation 210 of the ‘Regulations on Audit & Accounts, 2007’ framed under the CAG Act.
The Court further noted that it is quite evident that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents/Government of NCT of Delhi in taking requisite steps for laying the CAG Reports before the Legislative Assembly. The sequence of events and the timelines reveal a disdainful disregard by the Government of NCT of Delhi of its constitutional obligation. Regulation 210 of the Regulations of Audit and Accounts, 2007, clearly provides that it is the responsibility of the “Government, Ministry of Finance or Finance Department” to take “prompt action for the submission of the audit report to the President or the Governor or the Administrator for further action and for the presentation of the report in Parliament or the State or Union Territory legislature”. Thus, the primary onus to take requisite steps for laying the concerned CAG report in the Assembly is on the Government and not on the Speaker (respondent 3).
The Court remarked that “once the CAG reports are tabled in the House, they have to be examined and scrutinised by the PAC, as contemplated under Rule 192 of the Rules of Procedure. Given that the Legislative Assembly is at the fag end of its current term, the examination and scrutiny by the PAC will now take place only after the newly elected Assembly (pursuant to the upcoming elections) is re-convened.”
Thus, the Court is not inclined to accept the prayers of the petitioners that a mandamus be issued to the respondent 3/Speaker for summoning a special session of the Legislative Assembly at this stage. The Court directed that once the Legislative Assembly is constituted and summoned pursuant to upcoming elections, requisite steps shall be taken by the respondent under Rule 24, 27 and 289 of the Rules of Procedure, for the purpose of laying the CAG Reports, as expeditiously as possible.
[Vijender Gupta v GNCTD, W.P.(C) 18021/2024, decided on 24-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Pavan Narang, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Soni, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Neeraj, Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Mr. Kautilya Birat, Mr. Sanjay Pal, Mr. Rudra Paliwal, Mr. Ankush Kapoor, Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Mr. Sachin Saraswat, Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Mr. Himanshu Sethi, Mr. Vikramaditya Sanghi and Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC, Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Ms. Sheenu Priya, Mr. Vikash Saini, Mr. Atik Gill and Mr. Sudhir, Advocate for GNCTD for R-1 and R-2. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Ankita Singh, Mr. Udit Malik, ASC, Ms. Palak Sharma, Mr. C. Velmurugan and Ms. Rima Rao, Advocates. for R-3. Ms. Bani Dikshit, Mr. Uddhav Khanna, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Mr. Dhruva Vig and Ms. Vridhi Kashyap, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit, Mr. Himanshu Vats, Ms. Runjhun Garg, Mr. Lavam Tyagi, and Mr. Angad Pahal, Advocate for R-5 and R-6.
