Delhi High Court
Vijender Gupta & Ors. vs Government Of National Capital … on 24 January, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~J-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 24.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 18021/2024
VIJENDER GUPTA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Jayant Mehta,
Sr. Advocate and Mr. Pavan Narang,
Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Soni,
Sr. Advocate, Mr. Neeraj, Mr. Satya
Ranjan Swain, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr.
Ajay Awasthi, Mr. Kautilya Birat,
Mr. Sanjay Pal, Mr. Rudra Paliwal,
Mr. Ankush Kapoor, Mr. Soumyadip
Chakraborty, Mr. Sachin Saraswat,
Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Mr. Himanshu
Sethi, Mr. Vikramaditya Sanghi and
Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL
CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate along
with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC, Mr.
Divyam Nandrajog, Ms. Sheenu
Priya, Mr. Vikash Saini, Mr. Atik Gill
and Mr. Sudhir, Advocate for
GNCTD for R-1 and R-2.
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
along with Ms. Ankita Singh,
Mr. Udit Malik, ASC, Ms. Palak
Sharma, Mr. C. Velmurugan and Ms.
Rima Rao, Advocates. for R-3.
Ms. Bani Dikshit, Mr. Uddhav
Khanna, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Mr.
Dhruva Vig and Ms. Vridhi Kashyap,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 1 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
Advocates for R-4.
Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit,
Mr. Himanshu Vats, Ms. Runjhun
Garg, Mr. Lavam Tyagi, and
Mr. Angad Pahal, Advocate for R-5
and R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, inter-alia, seeking the following prayer/s:-
“(a) issue an appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing Respondent No. 1 and
2 to forward the 14 CAG Reports in a time bound manner to the
Respondent No. 3 and further direct Respondent No. 3 to take all
necessary and consequential action for discharge of their Constitutional
obligation under Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 for
summoning the special sitting of the Legislative Assembly and to table
those reports before the Legislative Assembly of Delhi in a time bound
manner; ”
2. The grievance articulated in the present petition is that the Chief
Minister, Government of NCT of Delhi (respondent no.2) has been remiss in
not forwarding the 14 CAG reports to the Hon’ble Speaker/respondent no.3,
and that the consequent non-tabling of these 14 CAG Reports before the
Legislative Assembly of Delhi amounts to a serious infraction of mandatory
constitutional requirements.
3. The petitioner no.1 is the leader of the opposition (LOP) in the
Legislative Assembly. The other petitioners are also Members of the
Legislative Assembly of Delhi.
4. Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India mandates that CAG
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 2 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
Reports relating to the accounts of a State shall be submitted to the Governor
or the Lieutenant Governor, who “shall cause them to be laid before the
Legislature of the State”. It is emphasized on behalf of the petitioners that
the said provision is designed to promote accountability, transparency and
good governance through high quality auditing and accounting.
5. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), respondent no.5 is
mandated under Chapter V of the Constitution of India to act as a
“Constitutional watchdog,” ensuring accountability, transparency, and good
governance through high-quality auditing and accounting. The CAG is
entrusted with the responsibility of auditing the accounts of the Union, the
States, and other authorities.
6. The CAG provides independent assurance to the public, legislature,
and executive regarding the effective and efficient use of public funds. It
audits all receipts and expenditures of the Central and State governments, as
well as government-funded autonomous bodies and corporations.
7. However, as many as 14 CAG Reports, which have been submitted by
the CAG to the Secretary of Finance, have not been laid before the
Legislative Assembly.
8. Regulation 210 of the Regulations on Audit & Accounts, 2007, issued
under Section 23 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers
and Conditions of Service), Act 1971, outlines the procedure for forwarding
audit reports to legislatures. In terms thereof, an officer authorized by the
CAG must send signed copies of the audit report to the Secretary to the
Government, Ministry of Finance or Finance Department as the case may
be, who shall further take prompt action for the submission of the auditSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 3 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
report to the President or the Governor or the Administrator for further
action and for the presentation of the report in Parliament or the legislature
in the concerned State or Union Territory.
9. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Government of NCT of Delhi, the
petitioners first approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing no.
W.P.(C) 15341/2024 titled “Vijendra Gupta Vs. Government of NCT of
Delhi and Ors.“. The petitioner sought directions to the Department of
Finance, Government of NCT of Delhi to send the CAG Reports to the
Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor as mandated under Article 151(2) of the
Constitution of India.
10. In the proceedings dated 12.12.2024 in the aforesaid writ petition, the
respondents’ counsel informed that there had been some movement of the
file in relation to the CAG Reports. Consequently, an additional affidavit
came to be filed by the respondent no.4/Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (the
same is substantially reproduced in the order dated 16.12.2024 in those
proceedings) stating as under:-
“5. Pertinently, it was only in pursuance of the fervent requests made by
the LG Office to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Finance Minister and other
functionaries to place the CAG reports with the LG office and thereafter
on account of the present Writ petition, that the Hon’ble Finance
Minister of Delhi, currently also functioning as the Chief Minister of
Delhi has released the long pending CAG reports and forwarded them to
the LG office only on 11.12.2024.”
6. The CAG reports mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 12 were received in the LG
office on 11.12.2024 at 3:30 PM and the CAG Reports mentioned at Sr.
No. 13 and 14 were received on 12.12.2024 at 7:50 PM for seeking
approval of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor in terms of Section 48 of the
GNCTD Act, 1991 with the purpose of laying such CAG reports before
the Legislative Assembly of the NCT of Delhi. In this regard, it is
pertinent to apprise this Hon’ble Court that 14 CAG reports have been
received from the Office of the Hon’ble Finance Minister:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 4 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
No. Report No. & Report Period Marked to Nos. of
year Finance days file
Minister by kept by
the Finance
Department Minister/
Chief
Minister
1 Report No 1 State Finances Year ended 09.08.2023 490 days
of 2022 Audit Report 31.03.2021
2 Report No 2 Performance Year ended 09.08.2023 490 days
of 2022 Audit on 31.03.2021
Prevention and
Mitigation of
Vehicular Air
Pollution in
Delhi
3 Report No 3 Revenue, Year ended 09.08.2023 490 days
of 2022 Economic, 31.03.2020 &
Social and 31.03.2021
General Sectors
& PSUs
4 Finance 2021-22 09.08.2023 490 days
Accounts
5 Appropriation 2021-22 09.08.2023 490 days
Accounts
6 Report No 1 Performance (2018-19 to 09.08.2023 490 days
of 2023 Audit Report on 2020-21) Year
Children in ended
Need of Care 31.03.2021
and Protection
7 Report No 2 State Finances Year ended 02.08.2023 497 days
of 2023 Audit Report 31.03.2022
8 Finance 2022-23 21.02.2024 294 days
Accounts
9 Appropriation 2022-23 21.02.2024 294 days
Accounts
10 Report No 1 Performance 2017-18 to 08.03.2024 278 days
of 2024 Audit of 2021-22
Regulation and
Supply of Liquor
in Delhi
11 Report No 2 State Finances Year ended 11.07.2024 153 days
of 2024 Audit Report 31.03.2023
12 Report No 3 Public Health Year ended 24.09.2024 78 days
of 2024 Infrastructure 31.03.2023
and
Management of
Health Services
13 Report No.4 Performance Year ended 10.12.2024 2 days
of 2024 Audit Report on 31.03.2022
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 5 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
Functioning of
Delhi Transport
Corporation
14 Report No.5 Revenue, Year ended 10.12.2024 2 days
of 2024 Economic, 31.03.2022
Social and
General Sectors
& PSUs and
Performance
Audit of the
Department of
H&FW and
Compliance
Audit
11. On 16.12.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition recording
as under:-
“6. In light of the aforenoted affidavit, it now emerges that the Lt.
Governor has received the CAG Reports, and has accorded his approval
under Section 48 of the GNCTD Act. Further, the Lt. Governor has
returned all the CAG Reports to the Chief Minister and has directed that
the special sitting of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi be convened
immediately in accordance with Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi, 1997, for laying the CAG Reports on the table of the Legislative
Assembly of Delhi without any further loss of time.
7. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Counsel representing Respondent Nos.
1 and 2, asserts that having received the CAG Reports, Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 shall forward the same to the Speaker, Delhi Legislative
Assembly/ Respondent No. 3. He states that the Reports shall be
forwarded within a period of two to three days from today. The said
statement is taken on record.
8. In light of the above, the relief sought in the present case, which was
for issuance of a writ of mandamus to Respondent No. 2 to send the
proposals to Respondent No. 4 for exercising his duties under Article 151
(2) of the Constitution of India, stands redressed.
9. In view of the above, the present proceedings are closed.
10. At this juncture, it must be noted that Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior
Counsel for the Petitioners, has stressed that once the CAG Reports are
forwarded to the Speaker, he must call for a Sitting of the House
promptly.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 6 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
11. In the event that such a decision is not taken, the Petitioners’ rights
to take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with
law, are reserved.”
12. It is the grievance of the petitioners in this petition that despite the
aforesaid order, the CAG Reports continued to languish and till the filing of
the present petition, had not even been forwarded to the Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners met the
Hon’ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on 19.12.2024 and gave a
Memorandum, highlighting the assurance given by the Government of NCT
of Delhi to send the CAG Reports to the Hon’ble Speaker within 2 to 3 days
and urged him to convene a special sitting of the Legislative Assembly for
laying the concerned CAG Audit Reports in the Delhi Legislative Assembly.
13. It is further averred that on 19.12.2024, the Speaker informed the
petitioners that he was not yet in receipt of the said CAG Reports.
Consequently, the present petition came to be filed.
14. It further transpires that after the present writ petition was filed, the
concerned CAG Reports were forwarded to the Secretary, Legislative
Assembly. This was duly recorded in the order dated 24.12.2024 passed in
these proceedings. The said order records as under:-
“4. On an earlier occasion, when the Petitioners approached this Court
in W.P.(C) 15341/2024, this Court, vide order dated 16th December,
2024, disposed of the petition, noting the statement made by Mr. Sudhir
Nandrajog, Senior Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (in
W.P.(C) 15341/2024) affirming that the CAG Reports shall be
forwarded to the Speaker, Delhi Legislative Assembly within a period of
two to three days.
5. The Petitioners’ grievance in the present petition is that the said
undertaking has not been given effect to. However, at the outset, on this
issue, Mr. Rahul Mehra, Senior Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2,Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 7 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
has handed over a copy of a communication sent by the Chief Minister/
Finance Minister Government of NCT of Delhi to the Secretary
Legislative Assembly Delhi, which stipulates as follows:
“PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTS OFFICE
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
A-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN,
IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI.
No.F.2(9)/Pr.A.O./Appro./C&AG(Audit)/2022-23/997
Dated: 24/12/2024
To
The Secretary
Legislative Assembly,
Delhi.
Sub:- Laying of Report No. 1 of 2023 of the Comptroller and Auditor General
of India on Performance Audit Report on Children in Need of Care and
Protection’ relating to the Government of NCT of Delhi for the year ended 31
March 2021 on the table of the House.
Sir,
I intend to lay on the table of the House a copy of Report No. 1 of 2023 of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India on ‘Performance Audit Report on
Children in Need of Care and Protection’ relating to the Government of NCT
of Delhi for the year ended 31 March 2021 in the ensuing Session of the
Legislative Assembly of Delhi. Two copies each of the English and Hindi
versions of the ‘Performance Audit Report on Children in Need of Care and
Protection’ for the year ended 31 March 2021 are placed below in sealed
cover.
Please give suitable date for laying the above said Accounts.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(ATISHI)
CHIEF MINISTER/ FINANCE MINISTER”
6. Mr. Mehra, on instructions, states that although the aforenoted
communication only mentions about Report No. 1/2023 of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, however the other
remaining reports have also been forwarded to the Secretary, Legislate
Assembly, today itself.
7. In light of the foregoing, this specific aspect of the Petitioners’
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 8 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
grievance stands redressed. Now the issue that arises for the Court’s
consideration is with respect to the Petitioner’s request for issuance of
mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 to summon the special sitting of
the Legislative Assembly and to table the CAG reports before the
Legislative Assembly of Delhi in a time bound manner.
8. On this particular aspect, the Respondents are directed to file their
counter affidavit, within a period of ten days from today. Rejoinder
thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
15. In the above conspectus, the present petition has been filed seeking
that a mandamus be issued to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to
summon a special sitting of the Legislative Assembly for tabling the CAG
Reports.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPECTIVE COUNSEL
16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that
the respondents’ failure to table the 14 CAG Reports before the Legislative
Assembly constitutes a blatant violation of mandatory constitutional and
statutory obligations. Further, by withholding the Reports and not
submitting them in a timely manner to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor as
required under Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 48 of
the Government of NCT of Delhi Act, 1991 (hereinafter ‘the GNCTD Act’),
the respondents have breached their duty to ensure financial transparency
and accountability. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 has deliberately
withheld the CAG Reports for extended and prolonged periods with an
intent to suppress the findings in the CAG Report/s and to avoid their
scrutiny in the Legislative Assembly.
17. It is submitted that the conduct of the respondent no(s). 1 to 3 has the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 9 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
effect of defeating the mandatory prescription in Section 48 of the GNCTD
Act. It is submitted that it is incumbent on the Government of NCT of Delhi
and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to follow the mandatory Rules
of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Legislative Assembly of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi, 1997 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of
Procedure’) and take appropriate steps as contemplated thereunder to
ensure that the CAG Reports are tabled in the Legislative Assembly at the
earliest.
18. It is submitted that withholding of the CAG Reports denies the public
their right to know about the manner in which the public money have been
dealt with/spent by the Government of NCT of Delhi. By suppressing these
Reports, the Government of NCT of Delhi is undermining the fundamental
principles of accountability and good governance which are fundamental to
the Constitution.
19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners emphasizes the urgency of
the matter given the upcoming Assembly Elections in Delhi and the
imminent expiry of the duration of the current Legislative Assembly.
Learned senior counsel relies upon the following judgments to contend that
laying of the CAG Reports in the Legislative Assembly is not merely a
procedural but a substantive, legal and constitutional mandate for which
appropriate directions/Mandamus can be issued by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India:
(i) ‘Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others’,
(2007) 3 SCC 184.
(ii) ‘Ashish Shelar and Others Vs. Maharashtra Legislative
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 10 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
Assembly and Anothers‘, (2022) 12 SCC 273
(iii) ‘Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Others Vs. Speaker Madhya
Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Others‘, (2020) SCC OnLine SC
363.
(iv) ‘Association of Unified Tele Services Providers and Others
Vs. Union of India and Others‘, (2014) 6 SCC 110.
(v) ‘Keisham Meghachandra Singh Vs. Speaker, Manipur
Legislative Assembly and Others‘, (2021) 16 SCC 503.
20. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3/Hon’ble Speaker,
Delhi Legislative Assembly has sought to refute the aforesaid contentions. It
is submitted that no writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the similar
nature, can be issued against the Respondent No. 3/ Speaker, directing the
said respondent to summon/ hold a sitting of the House. This is by virtue of
Article 212 of the Constitution of India read with Section 37 of the GNCTD
Act. It is submitted that in terms of the said provisions, the respondent no.3
is conferred with the sole authority to regulate the procedure, and the
conduct of business of Assembly and/or in maintaining order in the House.
21. It is strenuously emphasized that the power to regulate the procedure
and conduct of the business of the House rests in the Speaker; the action/s of
the Speaker cannot be questioned by any Court and are not amenable to
judicial review. Reliance in this regard has been sought to be placed on the
following judgments:
(i) ‘Ramdas Athawale Vs. Union of India and Others‘, (2010) 4
SCC 1.
(ii) ‘State of Punjab Vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 11 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
Punjab and Another‘, (2024) 1 SCC 384.
22. As such, it is submitted that the only surviving prayer in the present
petition viz. to issue a direction to the respondent no.3 for summoning a
special sitting of the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of tabling the
CAG Reports, is misconceived.
23. It is further submitted that the tenure of the present Assembly is
coming to an end in the early part of February 2025 and the last sitting of the
Assembly was held on 04.12.2024 on which date the Assembly was
adjourned sine die. As such, the concerned Reports of the CAG cannot be
reviewed and examined by the Public Accounts Committee (hereinafter
‘PAC’) before the tenure of the present Assembly expires. Therefore, it is
contended that no useful purpose will be served if the Reports are laid down
before the Assembly at this juncture of time, as these reports would be
subject to examination only by the successor PAC to be elected by the next
Assembly, which will be constituted after the elections.
24. It is submitted that it would be wholly unwarranted and unnecessary
to call for a special Session for the sole purpose of laying the concerned
Reports of CAG. It is emphasised that the CAG Reports are laid before the
Legislature for examination and investigation, which is conducted by the
PAC appointed by the legislature, implying that the primary and the most
significant object of laying the Reports as contemplated under Article 151 of
the Constitution of India, is to enable the Legislature/PAC to conduct a
detailed examination of its contents and not to make it available to the
public. It is further submitted that no time period is prescribed under Section
48 of the GNCTD Act to table the Reports before the Legislative Assembly.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 12 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
25. In the circumstances, it is urged that the present writ petition be
dismissed.
26. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no(s). 1 and 2 has also
drawn attention to the fact that in terms of Rule 192 of the Rules of
Procedure, it is provided that subsequent to laying the CAG Reports, the
said Reports are referred to the PAC for examination and scrutiny.
27. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
‘Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India and Others‘, (2013) 7 SCC 1, to
contend that the CAG Reports, are subject to Parliamentary debate and the
PAC may even reject the CAG Reports if it deems fit.
28. Attention is sought to be drawn to the fact that in the said judgment it
has been underscored that there is no finality as regards CAG Reports,
which are to be subjected to a close scrutiny by the PAC.
29. Learned counsel has also contended that it will be futile to call a
special sitting of the Assembly at the fag end of its tenure for the purpose of
tabling the concerned CAG Reports when it is quite evident that the same
cannot be scrutinized by the PAC prior to the expiry of the current duration
of the Legislative Assembly.
REASONING AND FINDINGS:
Laying Of CAG Reports Before Legislative Assembly Is A Mandatory
Constitutional Imperative
30. Section 48 of the GNCTD Act provides as under:-
“48. Audit Reports:
The reports of Comptroller and Auditor-General of India relating to the
accounts of the Capital for any period subsequent to the date referred toSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 13 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
in sub-section (1) of section 46 shall be submitted to the Lieutenant
Governor who shall cause them to be laid before the Legislative
Assembly.”
31. Articles 149 and 151 of the Constitution of India provide as under:-
“149. Duties and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General
The Comptroller and Auditor-General shall perform such duties and
exercise such powers in relation to the accounts of the Union and of the
States and of any other authority or body as may be prescribed by or
under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is
so made, shall perform such duties and exercise such powers in relation
to the accounts of the Union and of the States as were conferred on or
exercisable by the Auditor-General of India immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution in relation to the accounts of the
Dominion of India and of the Provinces respectively.
151. Audit reports
(1) The reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India relating
to the accounts of the Union shall be submitted to the President, who
shall cause them to be laid before each House of Parliament.
(2) The reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India relating
to the accounts of a State shall be submitted to the Governor of the State,
who shall cause them to be laid before the Legislature of the State.”
32. Regulation 210 of the ‘Regulations on Audit & Accounts, 2007’
issued in pursuance of Section 23 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s
(Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service), Act 1971 [ hereafter the “CAG
Act“] reads as under:-
“210. Forwarding copies of audit report for laying before legislature
(1) An officer authorised by the Comptroller and Auditor General shall
send copies of the audit report duly signed by the Comptroller and
Auditor General to the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance
or Finance Department as the case may be, who shall take prompt action
for the submission of the audit report to the President or the Governor or
the Administrator for further action and for the presentation of the report
in Parliament or the State or Union Territory legislature. Copies of the
audit reports under Section 19A of the Act shall be shall sent to theSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 14 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
Secretary of the Ministry or department concerned or the Administrator
of a Union Territory having legislative assembly, who shall take prompt
action for laying the same in the Parliament or the legislature of the
State or Union Territory.
(2) An unsigned copy of the audit report shall simultaneously be sent to
the Secretary to the President or the Governor or the Administrator.”
33. In Association of Unified Tele Services Providers and Others
(supra), while examining the nature of functions to be discharged by the
CAG pursuant to Article 149 of the Constitution of India, it has been
observed as under:-
“Article 149 does confer the power on CAG to discharge duties and
powers in relation to the accounts of the Union and the States or any
other authority or body, as may be prescribed under the law made by
Parliament. CAG, therefore, is exercising constitutional powers and
duties in relation to the accounts, while the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution, so also the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution, is exercising judicial powers. Duties and powers conferred
by the Constitution on CAG under Article 149 cannot be taken away by
Parliament, being the basic structure of our Constitution, like
parliamentary democracy, independence of judiciary, rule of law,
judicial review, unity and integrity of the country, secular and federal
character of the Constitution, and so on.”
34. Thus, the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that the
duties and powers conferred by the Constitution on the CAG are part of the
basic structure of the Constitution akin to parliamentary democracy,
independence of judiciary, rule of law, judicial review, unity and integrity of
the country, secular and federal character of Constitution, etc.
35. The said judgment has emphasized that the CAG is a constitutional
functionary appointed under Article 148 of the Constitution of India and its
main role is to audit the income and expenditure of the Government bodies
and state-run corporations. It was observed as under :-
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 15 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
“CAG has the power to examine the propriety, legality and validity of all
expenses incurred by the Government and the office of CAG exercises
effective control over the government accounts and expenditure incurred
on the schemes only after implementation of the scheme, as a result, the
duties of CAG will arise only after the expenditure has been incurred.”
36. Relying upon the judgment in the case of ‘Arvind Gupta v. Union of
India‘ (2013) 1 SCC 393, it was noted as under;
“39. In Arvind Gupta v. Union of India, this Court, while examining the
scope of Articles 149, 150 and 151 of the Constitution, vis-a-vis the
reports of CAG, noticed and pointed out that CAG’s functions are
carried out in the economy’s efficiency and effectiveness with which the
Government has used its resources and it was pointed out that
performance/audit reports prepared under the regulations have to be
viewed accordingly. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India this Court
while interpreting Section 16 of the 1971 Act held that:
“60. ……. CAG has to satisfy himself that the rules and procedures
designed to secure an effective check on the assessment, collection
and proper allocation of revenue are being duly observed…… CAG
also has to examine decisions which have financial implications,
including the propriety of decision-making.”
This Court also noticed that the report of CAG is required to be
submitted to the President, who shall cause them to be laid before each
House of Parliament, as provided under Article 151(1) of the
Constitution of India. By placing the reports of CAG in Parliament,
CAG regulates the accountability of the executive to Parliament in the
field of financial administration, thereby upholding the parliamentary
democracy.”
37. The above observations reflect the vital significance accorded to the
placing of the CAG reports in the concerned legislature. The Supreme Court
has gone to the extent of holding that the same is an adjunct of
parliamentary democracy.
38. It is evident, therefore, that laying the Reports of CAG in the
concerned legislature is in the nature of a mandatory constitutional
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 16 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
imperative. It is the means through which the elected representatives are
entitled to have access to the CAG Reports and thereby hold the
Government of the day accountable in the field of financial administration.
39. Although no time period is prescribed under Section 48 of the
GNCTD Act to table the Reports before the Legislative Assembly, it would
be subversive of the constitutional mandate to with-hold these reports from
the legislature for an inordinately long period after the same have been
forwarded by the CAG to the concerned government, in accordance with
Regulation 210 of the ‘Regulations on Audit & Accounts, 2007’ framed
under the CAG Act.
Delay In Tabling The CAG Reports Before The Legislative Assembly
40. As brought out in the order dated 16.12.2024 (whereby W.P.(C)
15341/2024 was disposed of), 14 CAG Reports were forwarded by the CAG
to the Finance Minister. The particulars of these Reports together with the
date/s on which they were forwarded to the concerned Department of
Government of NCT of Delhi and also the days/period for which these
Reports were kept with the respondent no.1/respondent no.2 before being
forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor (as contemplated under Section 48 of
the GNCTD Act) are as under:-
No. Report No. & Report Period Marked to Nos. of
year Finance days file
Minister by kept by
the Finance
Department Minister/C
hief
Minister
1 Report No 1 State Finances Year ended 09.08.2023 490 days
of 2022 Audit Report 31.03.2021
2 Report No 2 Performance Year ended 09.08.2023 490 days
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 17 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
of 2022 Audit on 31.03.2021
Prevention and
Mitigation of
Vehicular Air
Pollution in
Delhi
3 Report No 3 Revenue, Year ended 09.08.2023 490 days
of 2022 Economic, 31.03.2020 &
Social and 31.03.2021
General Sectors
& PSUs
4 Finance 2021-22 09.08.2023 490 days
Accounts
5 Appropriation 2021-22 09.08.2023 490 days
Accounts
6 Report No 1 Performance (2018-19 to 09.08.2023 490 days
of 2023 Audit Report on 2020-21) Year
Children in ended
Need of Care 31.03.2021
and Protection
7 Report No 2 State Finances Year ended 02.08.2023 497 days
of 2023 Audit Report 31.03.2022
8 Finance 2022-23 21.02.2024 294 days
Accounts
9 Appropriation 2022-23 21.02.2024 294 days
Accounts
10 Report No 1 Performance 2017-18 to 08.03.2024 278 days
of 2024 Audit of 2021-22
Regulation and
Supply of Liquor
in Delhi
11 Report No 2 State Finances Year ended 11.07.2024 153 days
of 2024 Audit Report 31.03.2023
12 Report No 3 Public Health Year ended 24.09.2024 78 days
of 2024 Infrastructure 31.03.2023
and
Management of
Health Services
13 Report No.4 Performance Year ended 10.12.2024 2 days
of 2024 Audit Report on 31.03.2022
Functioning of
Delhi Transport
Corporation
14 Report No.5 Revenue, Year ended 10.12.2024 2 days
of 2024 Economic, 31.03.2022
Social and
General Sectors
& PSUs and
Performance
Audit of the
Department of
H&FW and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 18 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
Compliance
Audit
41. It is quite evident that most of these CAG Reports were kept pending
with the respondent no.1/respondent no.2 for an inordinately long period of
time. Evidently, the Government of NCT of Delhi did not act alacrity even
when W.P.(C) 15341/2024 came to be filed. The said W.P.(C) 15341/2024
was listed in this Court on 29.10.2024 on which date notice was issued to
the concerned respondents. It is noted from the Annexure-R6 to the short
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.4, that the third part of the 5th
Session of the current Legislative Assembly was reconvened from
19.11.2024. At that point of time, W.P.(C) 15341/2024 was pending. In fact,
an early hearing application came to be filed in the said writ petition on
behalf of the petitioners therein, consequent to which the writ petition was
taken up for hearing on 02.12.2024 in which the petitioners highlighted the
urgency in light of the fact that the ongoing Session of the Legislative
Assembly was due to the lapse on 04.12.2024. In response, the submissions
on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 was recorded
as under:-
“Mr. Nandrajog categorically states that the term of Assembly is till the
middle of February and therefore, the presumption that this is the last
session in incorrect and the power to summon rests with the Lt.
Governor.”
42. The above statement is not altogether accurate inasmuch as it is now
the common case of the parties that it is the speaker alone who is authorized
to convene a sitting of the house. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rule
17 of the Rule of Procedure to contend that it is the sole prerogative of the
Speaker to call a sitting of the House after it was adjourned sine die on
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 19 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
04.12.2024.
43. It is also evident that the concerned respondents/Government of NCT
was remiss in forwarding the concerned CAG Reports to the Lieutenant
Governor as mandated under Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India,
even after this aspect was strenuously agitated by filing writ petition bearing
no. W.P.(C) 15341/2024. In the meantime, the third part of the 5th Session of
the current Legislative Assembly was adjourned sine die on 04.12.2024.
44. On 16.12.2024, the writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 15341/2024 was
disposed of by this Court after taking note of the affidavit filed by the
respondent no.4 therein/Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (through its Principal
Secretary) that the concerned CAG Reports had been forwarded to the
Office of Lieutenant Governor only on 11.12.2024 and 12.12.2024. The said
affidavit also notes that the Lieutenant Governor had accorded his approval
under Section 48 of the GNCTD Act on 13.12.2024 and forwarded the CAG
reports to Hon’ble Chief Minister, so that necessary steps could be taken for
laying all the 14 CAG Reports before the Legislative Assembly of Delhi in
the present Session.
45. Even thereafter, the respondent/Government of NCT of Delhi did not
act with alacrity in the matter. It was only after the present writ petition was
filed that the concerned CAG Reports were forwarded to the Secretary,
Legislative Assembly, by the respondent no.2.
46. It is quite evident that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of
the respondents/Government of NCT of Delhi in taking requisite steps for
laying the CAG Reports before the Legislative Assembly. The sequence of
events and the timelines reveal a disdainful disregard by the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 20 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
respondents/Government of NCT of Delhi of its constitutional obligation/s
in this regard, as set out in the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Association of Unified Tele Services Providers and Others (supra) and
Arvind Gupta (supra).
Whether a direction can be issued to the respondent no.3 to summon a
special sitting of the Legislative Assembly
47. On a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the
Government of NCT Act, 1991, the “Rules of Procedure” and the legal
position as enunciated by the Supreme Court, this Court does not find it
tenable to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.
3 to summon a special sitting of the Legislative Assembly. The reasons are
enumerated hereunder.
47.1 Under the Rules of Procedure, for the purpose of laying the reports of
the CAG before the House it is incumbent on the Government to inform the
Assembly Secretariat to include the relevant agenda in the list of business to
be transacted in the House. In this regard, Rules 24, 27 and 289 provide as
under :
“24 Information about the business to be taken up in the House
The Government shall inform the Assembly Secretariat about the
business to be taken up in the House in the first week of any session at least
fifteen days before the commencement of such meeting and thereafter on
each last working day of the week, the leader of the House or any member
of the Council of Ministers shall inform the House, after the question hour
about the business to be taken up in the next week.”
“27 Arrangement of Government business
On days other than those allotted for the business of Private
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 21 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
Members no business other than Government business shall be transacted
without the consent of the Speaker. The Secretary shall arrange the
business in such order as the Speaker may, in consultation with the Leader
of the House, decide:
Provided that the Speaker may, in consultation with the Leader of
the House, alter or amend the order of the business.”
“289 Laying of any paper or documents on the table of the House
No paper or document shall be laid on the Table without the order
or the authority of the Speaker:
Provided that when a paper or document is laid on the Table, prior
notice shall be given to the Secretary:
Provided further that whenever statutory regulations, rules,
sub-rules, bye-laws, etc. are required to be laid on the Table, prior
notice thereof shall be given by the minister to the Secretary in
writing along with the authenticated copies of the relevant
documents at least, one day in advance.”
Even under Regulation 210 of the Regulations of Audit and Accounts, 2007,
it is clearly provided that it is the responsibility of the “Government, Ministry
of Finance or Finance Department” to take “prompt action for the submission
of the audit report to the President or the Governor or the Administrator for
further action and for the presentation of the report in Parliament or the State
or Union Territory legislature”.
Thus, the primary onus to take requisite steps for laying the concerned CAG
report in the Assembly is on the Government and not on the respondent no.
3/Speaker. It was only on 24.12.2024 that the respondent no. 2 addressed a
communication (supra) to the Secretary, Legislative Assembly,
communicating its intention to lay the concerned reports on the table of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 22 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
House. At this stage, there is no material on the basis of which it can be
presumed by this Court that no follow up action shall be taken for the purpose
of laying the CAG reports as and when the Assembly reconvenes.
47.2 From the plain language of Article 212(2), it is evident that there is a
clear proscription that “no officer or member of the Legislature of a State in
whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating
procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the
Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the
exercise by him of those powers”.
Section 37 of the Government of NCT of Delhi Act, 1997, also provides as
under :-
“37. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Legislative
Assembly.–(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative
Assembly shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged
irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislative Assembly in whom powers are
vested by or under this Act for regulating procedure or the conduct of
business, or for maintaining order in the Legislative Assembly shall be
subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of
those powers.”
As such, the regulation of procedure for the conduct of business of the
Legislature is an aspect which is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
Moreover, under Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure, the power to
summon/convene a sitting of the Legislative Assembly which has not been
prorogued is solely within the domain of the Speaker. The said rule provides
as under:
“17. Adjournment of the House and procedure for reconvening
(1) The Speaker shall determine the time when a sitting of the House shall
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 23 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
be adjourned sine die or to a particular day, or to an hour or part of the
same day:
Provided that the Speaker, if he thinks fit, call a sitting of the House
before the date or time to which it has been adjourned or at any time
after the House has been adjourned sine die.
(2) In case the House, after being adjourned is reconvened under proviso
to sub-rule (1), the Secretary shall communicate to each member the date,
time, place and duration of the next part of the session.”
47.3 The scope of authority of the speaker to regulate the procedure and
conduct of business of the House, has been comprehensively considered by
the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Principal Secretary to the
Governor of Punjab and Another (supra). It has been held therein as under :
“41. Article 178 of the Constitution provides for the office of the Speaker
and Deputy Speaker of a Legislative Assembly. Article 212 of the
Constitution precludes the courts from inquiring into the proceedings of
the legislature of the State. A corresponding provision with regard to
Parliament is contained in Article 122. The decision in Ramdas Athawale
is significant in that it dwells on the role of the Speaker of the House and
interprets Article 122 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench
observed14; (SCC pp. 12-13, para 31)“31. The Speaker is the guardian of the privileges of the House and its
spokesman and representative upon all occasions. He is the interpreter of
its rules and procedure, and is invested with the power to control and
regulate the course of debate and to maintain order. The powers to
regulate the procedure and conduct of business of the House of the People
vests in the Speaker of the House. By virtue of the powers vested in him, the
Speaker, in purported exercise of his power under Rule 15 of the Rules of
Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha got issued Notice dated
20-1-2004 through the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha directing
resumption of sittings of the Lok Sabha which was adjourned sine die on
23-12-2003. Whether the resumed sitting on 29-1-2004 was to be treated
as the second part of the fourteenth session as directed by the Speaker is
essentially a matter relating purely to the procedure of Parliament. The
validity of the proceedings and business transacted in the House after
resumption of its sittings cannot be tested and gone into by this Court in a
proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 24 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
42. The Court observed that under Article 122(2), the decision of the
Speaker in whom powers are vested to regulate the procedure and
conduct of business is final and binding on every Member of the House.
Hence, this Court held that the validity of the Speaker adjourning the
House sine die and the later direction to resume sittings could not be
inquired into on the ground of any irregularity of procedure. The Court
reaffirmed that the business transacted and the validity of proceedings
after the resumption of sittings of the House pursuant to the direction of
the Speaker cannot be inquired by the courts. This follows the
fundamental principle that it is the right of each House of the legislature
to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings so as to be
immune from challenge before a court of law.
43. As stated above, Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure empowers the
Vidhan Sabha to adjourn from time to time by its own order. The first
proviso to Rule 16 acknowledges that adjournment of the Vidhan Sabha
may be either to a particular day or sine die. An adjournment sine die
postulates that there is no specific date on which the sitting of the Vidhan
Sabha is convened. The first proviso requires express consultation with
the Speaker in that regard, for the adjournment of the Vidhan Sabha.
However, even when an adjournment takes place the Speaker is entrusted
in public interest to call a meeting of the Vidhan Sabha before the date to
which it has been adjourned. These provisions are a clear indicator of the
control of the Speaker in the conduct, both of the legislative business of
the House and matters pertaining to its adjournment.
44. Therefore, it was legally permissible for the Speaker to reconvene the
sitting of the Vidhan Sabha after it was adjourned sine die without
prorogation. Further, the Speaker was empowered as the sole custodian of
the proceedings of the House to adjourn and reconvene the House.”
(emphasis supplied)
47.4 In Ramdas Athawale Vs. Union of India and Others (supra), the
Supreme Court has held as under:-
28. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is
whether the decision of the Speaker directing resumption of sitting of theSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 25 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
Lok Sabha which was adjourned sine die on 23-12-2003 is susceptible to
judicial review in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India?
29. Under Article 122 of the Constitution, the courts are precluded from
making inquiry into proceedings of Parliament. Article 122 reads as
under:
“122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.–(1) The
validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question
on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by
or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of
business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the
jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.”
30. A plain reading of Article 122 makes it abundantly clear that the
validity of any proceeding in Parliament shall not be called in question
on the ground of any irregularity of procedure. The prayer in the writ
petition is to declare the proceedings in the Lok Sabha pursuant to the
Notice dated 20-1-2004 issued under the directions of the Speaker as
unconstitutional. The petitioner is essentially raising a dispute as to the
regularity and legality of the proceedings in the House of the People. The
dispute raised essentially centres around the question as to whether the
Speaker’s direction to resume sittings of the Lok Sabha which was
adjourned sine die on 23-12-2003 is proper?
31. The Speaker is the guardian of the privileges of the House and its
spokesman and representative upon all occasions. He is the interpreter of
its rules and procedure, and is invested with the power to control and
regulate the course of debate and to maintain order. The powers to
regulate the procedure and conduct of business of the House of the
People vests in the Speaker of the House. By virtue of the powers vested
in him, the Speaker, in purported exercise of his power under Rule 15 of
the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha got issued
Notice dated 20-1-2004 through the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha
directing resumption of sittings of the Lok Sabha which was adjourned
sine die on 23-12-2003. Whether the resumed sitting on 29-1-2004 was to
be treated as the second part of the fourteenth session as directed by the
Speaker is essentially a matter relating purely to the procedure of
Parliament. The validity of the proceedings and business transacted in
the House after resumption of its sittings cannot be tested and gone into
by this Court in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 26 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
32. There are two articles to which reference must be made. Article 118(1)
provides that each House of Parliament may make rules for regulating,
subject to the provisions of the Constitution, its procedure and conduct of
its business. The rules, in fact, are made and known as the Rules of
Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. Rule 15 of the Rules of
Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha provides that:
“15. Adjournment of House and procedure for reconvening.–(1) The
Speaker shall determine the time when a sitting of the House shall be
adjourned sine die or to a particular day, or to an hour or part of the same
day:
Provided that the Speaker may, if he thinks fit, call a sitting of the
House before the date or time to which it has been adjourned or at any
time after the House has been adjourned sine die.
(2) In case the House, after being adjourned is reconvened under the
proviso to sub-rule (1), the Secretary General shall communicate to each
member the date, time, place and duration of the next part of the session.”
33. Article 118(1) makes it perfectly clear that when the House is to make
any rules as prescribed by it, those rules are subject to the provisions of
the Constitution which obviously include the fundamental rights
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
34. Similarly, Article 122(1) makes a provision which is relevant. It lays
down that:
“122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.–(1) The
validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question
on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.”
35. Article 122(2) confers immunity on the officers and Members of
Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for
regulating procedure or conduct of the business or for maintaining order
in Parliament from being subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect
of the exercise by him of those powers.
36. This Court Under Article 143, Constitution of India, In re (Special
Reference No. 1 of 1964) [AIR 1965 SC 745 : (1965) 1 SCR 413] (also
known as Keshav Singh case [AIR 1965 SC 745 : (1965) 1 SCR 413] )
while construing Article 212(1) observed that it may be possible for a
citizen to call in question in the appropriate court of law, the validity of
any proceedings inside the legislature if his case is that the said
proceedings suffer not from mere irregularity of procedure, but from an
illegality. If the impugned procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it
would be open to be scrutinised in a court of law, though such scrutiny is
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 27 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
prohibited if the complaint against the procedure is no more than this that
the procedure was irregular. The same principle would equally be
applicable in the matter of interpretation of Article 122 of the
Constitution.
37. The Notice dated 20-1-2004 is self-explanatory and reveals that the
House was adjourned sine die on 23-12-2003 by the Speaker. It is the
Speaker’s direction to resume its sittings from 29-1-2004 onwards. The
Notice clearly says that it was the second part of the fourteenth session
and was likely to conclude on 5-2-2004. The Speaker’s decision
adjourning the House sine die on 23-12-2003 and direction to resume its
sittings in part two essentially relates to proceedings in Parliament and is
procedural in nature. The business transacted and the validity of
proceedings after the resumption of its sittings pursuant to the directions
of the Speaker cannot be inquired into by the courts.
38. Under Article 122(2), the decision of the Speaker in whom powers are
vested to regulate the procedure and the conduct of business is final and
binding on every Member of the House. The validity of the Speaker’s
decision adjourning the House sine die on 23-12-2003 and latter direction
to resume its sittings cannot be inquired into on the ground of any
irregularity of procedure. The business transacted and the validity of
proceedings after the resumption of sittings of the House pursuant to the
directions of the Speaker cannot be inquired into by the courts.
39. No decision of the Speaker can be challenged by a Member of the
House complaining of mere irregularity in procedure in the conduct of the
business. Such decisions are not subject to the jurisdiction of any court
and they are immune from challenge as understood and explained
in Keshav Singh case [AIR 1965 SC 745 : (1965) 1 SCR 413] and further
explained in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain [1975 Supp SCC 1]
wherein it was observed that: (Indira Nehru case [1975 Supp SCC 1] ,
SCC p. 46, para 70)
“70. … the House is not subject to the control of the courts in the
administration of the internal proceedings of the House.”
(emphasis supplied)
47.5 As such, it has been unmistakably laid down by the Supreme Court that
the power to reconvene sitting/s of the Legislative Assembly after it has been
adjourned sine die without prorogation, is the sole prerogative of the Speaker
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 28 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
of the Assembly. It is not permissible for this Court to issue directions with
regard thereto.
47.6 On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is placed upon a line of judgments
of the Supreme Court which hold that while Articles 122 and 212 of the
Constitution of India shield legislative actions from scrutiny based on
“irregularity of procedure”, this immunity does not extend to challenges
grounded on allegations of substantive illegality or unconstitutionality in
respect of proceedings in the house. In this regard, reliance has been placed on
the following judgments:
A. Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, In re
(Special Reference No. 1 of 1964), AIR 1965 SC 745.
B. ‘Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others’, (2007)
3 SCC 184.
C. ‘Ashish Shelar and Others Vs. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly
and Anothers‘, (2022) 12 SCC 273.
D. ‘Keisham Meghachandra Singh Vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative
Assembly and Others‘, (2021) 16 SCC 503.
E. ‘Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Others Vs. Speaker Madhya Pradesh
Legislative Assembly and Others‘, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 363.
However, judicial review as contemplated under the aforesaid judgments,
cannot be extended to procedural aspects such as the timing of convening a
sitting of the assembly after it has been adjourned sine die. Moreover, the
concerned CAG reports have not yet been the subject matter of any
“proceedings in the legislature” which warrant any judicial review, given the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 29 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
confines set out in the aforesaid judgments.
Also, the directions issued in case of Shivraj Singh Chouhan (supra), were
in a completely different context viz. for the purpose of conducting a floor
test, in line with the prescription in SR Bommai v Union of India 1994 (3)
SCC 1, for the purpose of testing confidence of the House in an incumbent
government in the course of a “running Assembly”. It was held that the
exercise of such power by the Governor, does not impinge upon the
authority of the Speaker under Article 193(B) and Schedule X of the
Constitution. The directions issued in the said judgment were in this peculiar
context.
47.7 Importantly, it has been pointed out that the term of the current
Legislative Assembly is about to expire and elections for the purpose of
electing the next Legislative Assembly, are barely a few days away. In such a
situation, it would be impracticable to hold a special sitting of the assembly.
This is also on account of the fact that once the CAG reports are tabled in the
House, they have to be examined and scrutinised by the PAC, as
contemplated under Rule 192 of the Rules of Procedure. Given that the
Legislative Assembly is at the fag end of its current term, the examination and
scrutiny by the PAC will now take place only after the newly elected
Assembly (pursuant to the upcoming elections) is re-convened.
48. For all the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to accept the
prayers of the petitioners that a mandamus be issued to the respondent No.
3/Speaker for summoning a special session of the Legislative Assembly at
this stage.
49. However, it is directed that once the Legislative Assembly is
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 30 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10
constituted and summoned pursuant to upcoming elections, requisite steps
shall be taken by the Respondent/ Govt. of NCT of Delhi, inter-alia under
Rule 24, 27 and 289 of the Rules of Procedure, for the purpose of laying the
CAG Reports, as expeditiously as possible.
50. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
JANUARY 24, 2025
at, sv, dn
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 18021/2024 Page 31 of 31
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:24.01.2025
01:20:10