Jasmine Shah’s removal referred to President, says Delhi High Court

The Court was also told that under Article 239AA of the Constitution, the LG has ordered that Shah will not be allowed into the DDCD office till the President takes a call.
Delhi High Court (File Photo | PTI)
Delhi High Court (File Photo | PTI)

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court was on Tuesday told that the removal of Jasmine Shah from the Vice Chairperson post of the Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi (DDCD) has been referred to the President for a decision due to the difference of opinion between Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

Vinai Kumar Saxena
Vinai Kumar Saxena

The submission was made in a common preliminary counter affidavit filed by the LG, Director (Planning) of the Delhi government, Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil Lines) in the high court. The Court was also told that under Article 239AA of the Constitution, the LG has ordered that Shah will not be allowed into the DDCD office till the President takes a call.

“In complete contradiction to Article 239AA (4) and Rules 50, 51 and 52 of TBR (Transaction of Business Rules), the Hon’ble Chief Minister proceeded to form an opinion on the matter of Sh. Jasmine Shah for a second time, despite such matter having been referred to the Hon’ble President of India.By way of this order, in complete derogation of the noting of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor dated 30.11.2022, “ the affidavit read.

Also, Kejriwal proceeded to “summarily decide the matter on merits”, despite being aware that the matter referred to President, as per the affidavit. In September, BJP MP Pravesh Sahib Singh filed a complaint alleging that Shah is misusing his post and acting as ‘official spokesperson’ of the Aam Aadmi Party.

Earlier, L-G ordered that Shah be restricted from the discharge of functions as V-C and be barred from using any privileges connected with the office of VC, DDCD. He also asked Kejriwal to sack Shah from the post for allegedly ‘misusing his office for political purposes’. However, after receiving the file to revoke the restrictions, L-G invoked difference of opinion under Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution (to be read with Rule 50 of ToBR, GNCTD, 1993). Though the matter was listed for hearing before the court today, Justice Prathiba M Singh could not take it up and adjourned it to January 9.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com