Read Time: 09 minutes
“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 respondents/Government of NCT of Delhi of its constitutional obligation/s”, the court outlined.
The Delhi High Court, on Friday, dismissed the petition filed by MLA Vijendra Gupta seeking directions against the Speaker for summoning a special session of the Legislative Assembly. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held, “the term of the current Legislative Assembly is about to expire and elections for the purpose of electing the next Legislative Assembly, are barely a few days away. In such a situation, it would be impracticable to hold a special sitting of the assembly”.
Vijender Gupta, in his petition, alleged that the Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi failed to forward 14 CAG reports to the Speaker, resulting in their non-tabling before the Legislative Assembly, thereby breaching constitutional obligations under Article 151(2). Gupta emphasized the importance of these reports in ensuring accountability, transparency, and good governance through high-quality audits conducted by the CAG.
The petition alleged that the Chief Minister failed to forward 14 CAG reports to the Speaker, resulting in their non-tabling before the Legislative Assembly, violating constitutional mandates. The petitioners, including the Leader of the Opposition and other Assembly Members, cited Article 151(2) of the Constitution, which requires such reports to be submitted to the Governor or Lieutenant Governor for presentation in the Legislature. This provision is intended to ensure accountability and transparency through robust auditing.
The CAG, designated as a constitutional watchdog, audits government accounts to ensure efficient use of public funds. Despite submitting the 14 reports to the Secretary of Finance, they were not presented before the Legislative Assembly, violating Regulation 210 of the 2007 Audit and Accounts Regulations.
The court deliberated on whether presenting CAG reports to the Legislative Assembly was a mandatory constitutional requirement. Referring to the case of Association of Unified Tele Services Providers and Others v. Union of India and Others, the court highlighted that the CAG's duties and powers were integral to the Constitution’s basic structure, aligned with principles such as parliamentary democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law.
The CAG, a constitutional authority under Article 148, primarily audited the income and expenditure of government bodies and state-run corporations. Tabling these reports in the legislature was deemed crucial for ensuring executive accountability to the legislature in financial administration, thereby upholding parliamentary democracy, the court added.
The court noted that despite the urgency raised during the Assembly session (ending December 4, 2024) and the filing of writ petitions, the Government of NCT of Delhi exhibited negligence and failed to act promptly. The Lieutenant Governor only approved the reports on December 13, 2024, after significant delays. Even then, the necessary steps to present the reports were initiated only after further legal intervention. The timelines and actions demonstrate the government’s disregard for its constitutional duties.
The court highlighted that while Section 48 of the GNCTD Act did not prescribe a timeline for tabling the reports, prolonged delays would violate the constitutional mandate. The process was essential for enabling elected representatives to scrutinize government financial activities effectively.
The court outlined that the responsibility for laying CAG reports before the Assembly lies with the Government, not the Speaker. Article 212(2) of the Constitution and Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure grant the Speaker exclusive authority to convene Assembly sessions.
Furthermore, the court noted that the CAG reports had not yet been tabled, and judicial review of procedural matters like convening a session was not permissible. Additionally, the current Assembly’s term was nearing completion, and holding a special session was deemed impractical. Thus, the court declined the petitioners' request but directed that, once the new Assembly is constituted, the Government should promptly lay the CAG reports as required by the Rules of Procedure.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani, Jayant Mehta, Pavan Narang and Anil Soni with Advocates Neeraj, Satya Ranjan Swain, Ravi Sharma, Ajay Awasthi, Kautilya Birat, Sanjay Pal, Rudra Paliwal, Ankush Kapoor, Soumyadip Chakraborty, Sachin Saraswat, Vaibhav Thaledi, Himanshu Sethi, Vikramaditya Sanghi and Sushil Kr. PandeyFor GNCTD: Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel Rishikesh Kumar with Advocates Divyam Nandrajog, Sheenu Priya, Vikash Saini, Atik Gill, and SudhirFor Speaker: Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, Standing Counsels Ankita Singh and Udit Malik with Advocates Palak Sharma, C. Velmurugan and Rima RaoFor Lieutenant Governor: Advocates Bani Dikshit, Uddhav Khanna, Anirudh Sharma, Dhruva Vig and Vridhi KashyapFor CAG: Advocates Shreeyash U. Lalit, Himanshu Vats, Runjhun Garg, Lavam Tyagi, and Angad PahalCase Title: Vijender Gupta v Government of NCT (2025:DHC:377)
Please Login or Register
