Atishi declares order of appointing Delhi govt standing counsel on interim basis 'invalid'

New Delhi: Delhi Law Minister Atishi has declared as "invalid" an order issued by the principal secretary (Law) appointing another lawyer as standing counsel to represent Delhi government before the Delhi High Court on interim basis instead of standing counsel (civil) Santosh Kumar Tripathi.

The minister, in an order issued on February 15, said "Tripathi will continue to handle the responsibilities of standing counsel (civil), Delhi High Court, GNCTD".

A copy of the order has also been sent to the registrar general of the high court.

Earlier this month, Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena had said that government counsel have made "misleading" statements before the high court related to a report on the opening of liquor vends in conforming and non-conforming wards while implementing the now-rescinded excise policy in the national capital, officials had said.

Later on February 14, the principal secretary (Law) issued an order stating, "As an interim arrangement and to ensure proper representation of GNCTD of Delhi before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Shri Anupam Srivastava, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) is hereby appointed Standing Counsel (Civil), Delhi High Court NCT of Delhi till further orders. He will perform all the duties of Standing Counsel (Civil), Delhi High Court, GNCT of Delhi and conduct the cases presently handled by Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi."

Taking note of this, the next day Atishi issued an order saying that the principal secretary (Law) had issued the order on the directions of the LG and the Chief Secretary and the appointment of the standing counsel is a transferred subject and is a decision taken by the Council of Ministers of the Delhi government.

"Removal or appointment of a standing counsel (whether in a permanent or interim manner) is outside the, purview of the Hon'ble LG. Neither is this covered under the GNCTD Amendment Act 2023," she said in the order.

"The impugned order has been issued by principal secretary (Law) without the approval of the minister in-charge and is therefore without basis in law, and is in violation of Allocation of Business Rules, Transaction of Business Rules, GNCTD Act and Article 239AA of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned order is ab initio null and void, and therefore declared invalid," she said.

The principal secretary (Law) on the instructions of LG, had also asked Tripathi not to appear on behalf of Delhi government before any court of law till further orders and till the decision is taken in the matter by the competent authority.

A similar order was also issued to advocate Arun Panwar, who is also a panel counsel of Delhi government.

Earlier, Raj Niwas officials had said the proposal of the Excise Commissioner to submit the report of the committee -- set up on the orders of the Delhi High Court regarding conforming and non-conforming wards -- to the court was moved for LG's approval on August 18, 2022.

However, it was stalled by the then minister twice, officials had said.

"All this while the government kept telling on record in HC, that the report was pending with LG. It prompted the court to request the LG thrice to clear the file for submission of the report expeditiously, despite the fact that the file was not with LG.

"The proposal was cleared by Atishi (Delhi minister) who sent it for further recommendation to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who cleared it on January 16 this year and sent it to LG," an official had said.

In a file noting to Kejriwal, Saxena noted that the file relating to the approval of the report was received at the LG Secretariat on January 16 this year -- after a lapse of one year and five months since it was first moved for LG's approval on August 18, 2022, the official had said.

Saxena had noted in the file that the case is a "sad reflection on the manner in which the state government counsels made false and misleading statements" before the court, showing the Lieutenant Governor and his office in poor light in the eyes of the court.