Delhi Govt Rejects LG's Request For Removal Of DDCD Vice Chairperson Jasmine Shah; High Court Refuses To Stay LG's Decision, Seeks Written Response

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to stay Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena's decision asking Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to remove Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi (DDCD) Vice Chairperson Jasmine Shah from the post and the interim order restricting Shah from discharge of functions as the V-C in the meantime.

In the order conveyed through Director (Planning) Vijendra Singh Rawat on November 17, the LG requested Kejriwal to remove Shah from his post for allegedly misusing the public office for political activities. Pending the decision of the Chief Minister, Shah has been restricted by the LG from using his office space and the staff and facilities assigned to him have also been withdrawn. According to the petition, Shah's office has been sealed and all the privileges and facilities extended to him as the vice-chairperson have been withdrawn.

"I would prefer that both of you file affidavits in this matter. Without counter, how will I deal with the allegations. We can't reinstate a person like. I can't decide without affidavit," said Justice Prathiba M. Singh, while listing the matter for hearing on December 13.

When Justice Singh said that the "the allegations are that you have been campaigning or something...", Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, who appeared for the LG, submitted, "yes sitting in his office, where we are paying him salary he is getting salary of 1 lakh... 30 thousand rupee allowance..."

Jain earlier argued that "larger issues" are involved in the case and sought time to respond to the petition. Jain submitted that the Deputy Chief Minister on Saturday last week has made "some notings on the file" and that matter is now again before the LG. "Your lordship may keep the matter tomorrow or day after so that the LG can place his noting," he submitted.

The court last week had asked the counsel representing the LG to seek instructions.

During the resumed hearing, Delhi's Standing Counsel (Civil) Santosh Kumar Tripathi - who appeared for DDCD, said the decision has been taken by the government and the planning department has been asked to rescind the November 17 order. Tripathi also argued that there is no embargo to Shah's resuming the functions in view of the government decision.

However, Jain argued that the order has not yet attained finality. "We respectfully disagree," the ASG said, while responding to the submission made by Tripathi.

The court asked the LG and planning department to place an affidavit on record giving their specific stand against the writ petition. The court also asked Tripathi, who handed across a note sheet to show that a decision has been taken, to place on record an affidavit along with the decision. 

Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Shah, earlier submitted that there is no question of reinstatement because the LG has recognised that he has no power to remove him.

"The question is only of use in the interim. The order is completely without jurisdiction. The order is not served. Somebody just comes and seals it [the office]. There has to be some element of propriety. If [LG] he has no jurisdiction to pass the order then where is the question of sealing in the interim. He writes to the Chief Minister, recognising that right is with the Chief Minister to take action. How does a man who is asking somebody to take action then in the meantime restrict," argued Nayar, adding that Shah is not a security risk.

In September, BJP MP Pravesh Sahib Singh had filed a complaint alleging that Shah was acting as official spokesperson of the Aam Aadmi Party before the media, and called it a misuse of public office.

Shah, who was appointed as the chairperson of the government think tank in 2020, was issued a show cause notice last month by the Director of Planning Department for alleged "misuse of public resources" for political activities. Shah had chosen to submit his response to the Chief Minister through Deputy Chief Minister/Minister (Planning). The LG had earlier sought a copy of the reply from the Chief Minister's office but same was not provided, according to the planning department.

Shah has argued that the terms of constitution of the DDCD reflect that the sole supervisory jurisdiction and authority over the appointment and discharge of the functions of the vice chairperson is that of the Cabinet and the Chief Ministers. Director (Planning) did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint or to seek the petitioner's explanation or pass any directions.

"In the fitness of things and as per law, the complaint ought to have been forwarded to the competent authority namely, the Chairperson DDCD for examination and necessary action," Shah said in the plea.

Submitting that the November 17 order itself concedes the position that any action against him can only be taken by the Chief Minister/Chairperson DDCD, Shah said the direction to restrict him from discharging the functions as vice chairperson is evidently premature, without any authority and mala fide. "All consequent actions and steps taken in this regard are also, therefore, illegal," he argued.

Defending his political activities, Shah argued that the expectation of 'political neutrality' is only associated with 'government servants' who constitute the 'permanent executive' in a parliamentary system of democracy such as the one adopted by India.

"It is only persons appointed to a civil service or holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Union who are governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules. The Petitioner, on the other hand, has been appointed by the Cabinet of the GNCTD to advise the Government on issues of governance and his term is coterminous with the present Government. He is not a part of the "permanent executive" but at the highest could perhaps be stated to be an extension of the "political executive," the plea contends.

Shah has also said that he is not entrusted with the responsibilities, duties or functions which would involve the exercise of executive, administrative or judicial powers of the State or authority in the name of or on behalf of the Government of the NCT of Delhi such as sanctioning of the budget for the DDCD, appointment of staff or payment of salaries and he, therefore, does not have a master servant relationship with the government.

He also said that he has never used the official premises of the DDCD for any television debate or media interaction "as alleged in the complaint, and rubber stamped in the impugned order". The proceedings against Shah are a witch hunt aimed only at achieving maximum publicity at the cost of humiliating him and denigrating "his tireless efforts dedicated to the service of the residents of the national capital," the plea before court alleges.

"The sole object and purpose of the impugned orders is to victimise the Petitioner for expressing his political views in television debates which were not to the liking of the Complainant, Shri. Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Member of Parliament of the BJP from West Delhi, and Respondent No.3 [LG] who acted on a complaint made by the former with alacrity, in a pre-meditated manner," Shah's counsel have said in the plea.

The order passed against Shah is a gross abuse of power and process, argues the plea, adding the "colourable exercise" of authority is patently lacking in jurisdiction apart from being wholly without merit.