Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The High Court of Delhi took note of the frequent clashes between senior law officers in the High Court over the issue of representing Delhi Police. The court also directed the petitioner to file rejoinder in a week’s time. The court was hearing a petition alleging illegal detention under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, due to non-functioning of NIA Courts amid lockdown.
The matter was taken up by a bench comprising Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagar through video conferencing. The bench said that they hope these kind of issues would be similarly resolved in other cases as well, so that the focus of court remains on the determination of the merits of the case, rather than on such issues.
Similar controversy has arisen in the first hearing of the Delhi Riots before Justice Muralidhar due to heated arguments between Rahul Mehra and SG Tushar Mehta. Mr. Mehra, Standing Counsel for the GNTCD contended that as per law settled by this High Court and the Apex Court, it is only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the GNCTD that the power under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. to appoint the Special P.P. or Special Counsel can be exercised by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor and that the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor has no independent power to make such appointments. He further stated that such position has been accepted by the Delhi Police by applying for the appointment of Special P.P. or Special Counsel to the Ministry of Home, GNCTD, and appropriate orders have been issued by the Home Minister. He stated that the issue of Lieutenant Governor appointing counsels to represent Delhi Police directly and independently does not remain outstanding before this Court.
Senior Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan submitted that the Delhi Police had obtained approval from Home Minister, Delhi Government to avoid controversy and it doesn’t necessarily reflect the understanding of the union of India as to the interpretation of Supreme Court judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Union of India & Another, (2018).
Mr. Mehra highlighted that the response filed by Mr. Mahajan on behalf of the Delhi Police has been submitted without same being routed through the Office of the Standing Counsel (Criminal), which has been the consistent customary practice. Replying to this, Mr. Mahajan said that such procedural aspects would be taken care of in the future.
The court noted that the controversy dealt by it in the previous order and noting aforesaid, does not survive for determination in the present case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824