• Source:JND
Add as a preferred

In a big relief for the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections, the Delhi High Court on Friday turned down BJP’s plea to call a special sitting of the state assembly for the tabling of 14 CAG reports on governance. “Court is not inclined to accept the petition for summoning a special session for laying the reports,” Justice Sachin Datta said. 

Justice Datta also emphasised that there was an "inordinate delay" on the part of the Delhi government in the matter. The court ruled that presenting the CAG reports is a constitutional requirement, but decided not to issue a judicial order to call the assembly.

Opposition leader Vijender Gupta, along with BJP MLAs Mohan Singh Bisht, Om Prakash Sharma, Ajay Kumar Mahawar, Abhay Verma, Anil Kumar Bajpai, and Jitendra Mahajan, filed a petition last year. 

They sought a directive from the speaker to convene a session of the assembly for tabling the CAG reports. The petition was filed through their advocates, Neeraj and Satya Ranjan Swain.

The senior lawyers representing the speaker and the government argued against the court issuing such a direction, stating that there was no immediate need to table the reports, especially with the upcoming assembly elections.

The delay in tabling reports covering important topics like Delhi's liquor policy, vehicular pollution, and public health has sparked a clash between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). 

With the Delhi Assembly elections scheduled for February 5, the BJP is seeking to use the absence of these reports to corner the AAP government ahead of the vote. The election results will be announced on February 8.

The BJP has accused the AAP government of "intentional lapses" in its excise policy, pointing to the CAG reports. They also allege that the cost of promoting government schemes was much higher than what was allocated for the schemes themselves.

However, the AAP has rejected these claims as "fabricated" and criticized the BJP's move in the high court, calling it "politically motivated."