HC sets aside single judge's order against Kiran Bedi

The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside a single judge's order which had held Puducherry Lt Governor Kiran Bedi cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the elected government in the union territory.

It ruled that the Centre will take the final decision in matters referred by the Administrator (Bedi) in case of difference of opinion between her and the union territory government.

The court, however, cautioned that the Central government has to act within the limitations of the Constitution, subject to the laws made by the Parliament and follow the legislative intent and should not be disbalanced by executive misinterpretation.

First bench comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad, which allowed appeals by the Centre and the Administrator (Bedi), also said it expects the elected government headed by the Chief Minister and the Lt Governor shall work in unison and not in division.

The order is the latest in a series of litigations over the alleged power tussle between Chief Minister V Narayanasamy and the Lt Governor.

The matter had even reached the Supreme Court last year which, however, asked the Centre to challenge the single judge's order before a division bench of the high court.

The bench said the role of the government and the Administrator in Puducherry were intertwined and the final decision to be made by the Central government under orders of the President if there be a difference of opinion in the event the Administrator makes a reference.

In his April 30, 2019 order Justice R Mahadevan 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.

He had passed the order on a petition by Congress MLA K Laksminarayanan challenging two communications issued in January and June, 2017 by the Union Home Ministry "elevating" the power of the administrator.

The legislator had cited instances of alleged interference in the day-to-day affairs by the Lt governor, forcing government officials to be in WhattsApp groups, interfering in financial matters, holding review meeting with officials, and thereby bypassing the elected government.

Challenging the order, the Union Home Secretary and the Puducherry Administrator filed the present appeal.

Allowing it, the bench in its 156-page order said: "We hold that the impugned judgment on the basis of parallel being drawn between a state and a Union Territory was not appropriate and the same cannot be achieved by a decree of Court of law, the reasoning being not far to see that under the Constitution it is only the Parliament which can by law grant such equal status."
On the Centre's order that the Administrator has powers to directly interact with the officers, the bench said: "It may be pointed out that the Administrator can call for papers that has to be complied with by the Secretary of the Department and certain classes of matters are to be submitted to the Administrator through the Chief Minister."