Chennai, Mar 11 (PTI) The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside a single judge's order which had held Puducherry Lt Governor Kiran Bedi cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the elected government in the union territory.
It ruled that the Centre will take the final decision in matters referred by the Administrator (Bedi) in case of difference of opinion between her and the union territory government.
The court, however, cautioned that the Central government has to act within the limitations of the Constitution, subject to the laws made by the Parliament and follow the legislative intent and should not be disbalanced by executive misinterpretation.
First bench comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad, which allowed appeals by the Centre and the Administrator (Bedi), also said it expects the elected government headed by the Chief Minister and the Lt Governor shall work in unison and not in division.
The order is the latest in a series of litigations over the alleged power tussle between Chief Minister V Narayanasamy and the Lt Governor.
The matter had even reached the Supreme Court last year which, however, asked the Centre to challenge the single judge's order before a division bench of the high court.
The bench said the role of the government and the Administrator in Puducherry were intertwined and the final decision to be made by the Central government under orders of the President if there be a difference of opinion in the event the Administrator makes a reference.
In his April 30, 2019 order Justice R Mahadevan had observed that the elected government functioning through a council of ministers could not be defeated by the acts of an administrator who is also functioning under the provisions of the Constitution.
He had passed the order on a petition by Congress MLA K Laksminarayanan challenging two communications issued in January and June, 2017 by the Union Home Ministry "elevating" the power of the administrator.
The legislator had cited instances of alleged interference in the day-to-day affairs by the Lt governor, forcing government officials to be in WhattsApp groups, interfering in financial matters, holding review meeting with officials, and thereby bypassing the elected government.
Challenging the order, the Union Home Secretary and the Puducherry Administrator filed the present appeal.
Allowing it, the bench in its 156-page order said: "We hold that the impugned judgment on the basis of parallel being drawn between a state and a Union Territory was not appropriate and the same cannot be achieved by a decree of Court of law, the reasoning being not far to see that under the Constitution it is only the Parliament which can by law grant such equal status."
The single judge, therefore, may have arrived at a conclusion on the basis of certain other parallels but that, in the court's opinion, were not sufficient to allow the writ petition in the terms it has been done, it said.
"We have no option, therefore, but to set aside the impugned judgment... but the same is subject to observations made herein above, with liberty to the Central Government to take appropriate steps in the event a reference is made to it by taking a concrete decision on the issues so raised on a reference being made under the 1963 Rules of Business read with the 1963 Act," the bench said.
The judgement elaborately discussed about the roles to be played by the Council of Minister of Puducherry, Chief Minister of Puducherry and the Union Government and the Administrator/ Lieutenant Governor and rules governing them.
The Central government through the Home Ministry under orders of the President exercises a referral role to umpire a decision in the event the Administrator makes a reference as per the 1963 Rules for its decision.
Such a decision should rest on a sound foundation based on objective material and a rational subjective satisfaction recording a firm opinion.
The court noted that the Union Territory of Puducherry and its legislature as well as its system of governance is distinct.
It therefore cannot be given an equivalent status that of a state through a judicial verdict given its present Constitutional and legal structure but it is still not a belonging but a pride of the nation and a native pride of the people of Puducherry amidst its diverse geographical locations, it said.
"We, therefore, expect that the popularly elected Government headed by the Chief Minister and the Administrator/Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry shall work in unison and not in division," the judges said.
This expectation had been more elaborately spelt out in paragraphs 284.2, 284.3 and 284.6 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Union of India and another, they added.
On the proposition of powers as entailed in the rules, the bench clarified that it was only residuary part as contained in Chapter IV which is within the domain of the Administrator.
Here, the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers may not be required, but at the same time the word discretion and the phrase special responsibilities do not belittle the role of the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as contained in Chapter III of the said rules, it added.
On the Centre's order that the Administrator has powers to directly interact with the officers, the bench said: "It may be pointed out that the Administrator can call for papers that has to be complied with by the Secretary of the Department and certain classes of matters are to be submitted to the Administrator through the Chief Minister."
The purpose was that if the Administrator has any difference of opinion, the same can be referred to the Central government for the decision of the President.
The aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, therefore, was binding to the said extent that the Administrator cannot on his(her) own outright reject a proposal or direct the authorities to act otherwise, but can differ and refer the matter to the Centre, it added.
