In the ongoing turf war in Puducherry over administrative control, the Supreme Court issued a notice to Puducherry Chief Minister V Narayanasamy in a plea filed by Lieutenant-Governor Kiran Bedi and sought his reply by June 21. In her plea, Bedi argued that government officers in Puducherry were caught in a bind after the apex court issued a notice on a Madras High Court order that curbed Bedi’s powers.
During the hearing, the vacation bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and MR Shah directed the government not to implement any decisions with financial implications taken at the cabinet meeting on June 7 until the next hearing, which is on June 21.
After being made a party in the plea, Narayanasamy said speaking to Puthiya Thalamurai, “Honourable Judge Lakshminarayanan has said that those officials who disregard MHC’s order will be punished for disobeying the court order. Now the SC has stayed this temporarily.”
When asked about the court’s restriction on the implementation of cabinet decisions with financial implications, he said, “Policy plans can be taken, land-related and administration related decisions can be made.”
Bedi and Narayanasamy have been at loggerheads on administrative issues ever since she assumed office in May 2016. In the wake of the standoff, Bedi moved the Madras High Court seeking clarity on control of bureaucrats in Puducherry. The Madras High Court in its verdict on April 30 stated that the Lieutenant Governor “cannot interfere with the activities of the elected government”.
Bedi’s petition in the Supreme Court contended that the Chief Minister issued a note quoting the high court order and directed the Chief Secretary, the Development Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Personnel) and the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Finance) to review all the existing standing orders issued by the departments concerned and then amend it in tune with the high court order.
Bedi’s counsel Gagan Gupta contended in the petition: “Direct that status quo ante be maintained as regards administrative functioning in the Union Territory of Puducherry as it existed prior to passing of the impugned judgment of April 30 (Madras High Court order), during pendency of the present petition.”
Highlighting the confusion among officers in the light of the high court order, the petition claimed: “The officers are in a quandary as to whether to implement the directions of the high court or otherwise. That the officers are being threatened with contempt action is leading to administrative chaos, hence the urgency (for an early hearing).”
On May 10, the apex court admitted Bedi’s appeal to stay the high court decision and issued a notice to various respondents, including the state government. Bedi’s petition claimed that the Madras High Court had not understood the true import of the Union Territories Act.
Bedi’s counsel sought the apex court to direct that officers in the Union Territory administration shall not be harassed or threatened in any manner citing the high court order, during the pendency of this petition. He informed the top court that the Chief Minister had issued orders even after its May 10 notice.
With IANS inputs