Confusion in Pondy after HC order, Bedi tells SC

Bedi has moved the apex court challenging the Madras High Court verdict which held that Puducherry Lieutenant Governor (LG) “cannot interfere” in the day-to-day affairs of the UT’s elected government.

The plea stated that Chief Minister V Narayanasamy issued orders even after the top court on May 10 admitted appeals of the Centre and Bedi against the Madras High Court.

“Pursuant to the order dated May 10, 2019, propriety demanded that status quo ante as it existed prior to the impugned judgment dated April 30 having been passed, be maintained. However it was not to be,” the plea stated.

On April 30, the High Court had asked Bedi not to interfere in the day-to-day administration of the Union Territory, especially when an elected government is in place.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Aniruddha Bose said it will hear the plea next week.

At the outset, counsel appearing for Bedi told the bench that “there was confusion prevailing over the functioning of bureaucracy in the Union Territory since the Madras High Court verdict”.

On May 10, the apex court on pleas of the Centre and Bedi had sought response from Congress MLA K Laksminarayanan, on whose plea the High Court had passed the verdict on April 30.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had told the bench that the High Court verdict should be stayed as governance has come to a standstill because of the order.

The High Court had set aside two communications, issued in January and June 2017 by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, “elevating” the powers of the administrator.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the tussle between Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lt Governor Anil Baijal, the High Court had said that restrictions imposed on the Government of Delhi are not applicable to the Government of Puducherry. “The administrator cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the government. The decision taken by the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister is binding on the Secretaries and other officials,” the High Court had said.

Laksminarayanan had claimed in his plea before the High Court that the administrator was interfering in the day-to-day administration of the territorial government, its policies and programmes.