Delhi Assembly kept in suspended animation as l-G expected BJP to form Govt, Centre tells SC
In a bizarre defence of its decision to keep Delhi Assembly in suspended animation, the UPA Government told the Supreme Court that the l-G counted on the BJP to form an alternative Government as two Independent MlAs seemed “uncertain” over continued support to the Arvind Kejriwal Government and an AAP MlA, who withdrew support, claimed he had other MlAs from the party with him.
In its affidavit, the Centre seemed to forget that the Kejriwal Government was no longer in office, and hence the question of “continued” support of the two MlAs did not arise.
The Centre’s affidavit filed in SC on Thursday came a day prior to the hearing on a petition by AAP challenging the constitutional validity of the President’s order of February 15 placing Delhi Assembly in suspended animation. The AAP Government had recommended dissolution of the Assembly and holding of fresh elections.
Without giving any facts to back its claim, the Centre said it did not take on face value media reports that the BJP was not ready to stake claim to form an alternative Government. It said such reports contained no quotes from any BJP leader.
Moreover, the affidavit by the Ministry of Home Affairs said: “Political decisions taken at one point of time and alignments are known to change.” As an example, it cited how AAP, which initially was averse to a coalition Government, later changed its position and accepted Congress’ support.
To add to this, the Centre declared that the AAP Government had become a minority Government after it failed to garner support in the House to introduce the Jan lokpal Bill. “Thus the Government of petitioner no. 1 (AAP) was clearly in a minority and did not enjoy confidence in the House by reason of its conduct in relation to introduction of the said Bill,” the affidavit said.
Considering these as “relevant” factors to overrule the recommendation by a “minority” Government to dissolve the House, the Centre concluded: “In view of the dissensions within AAP and widespread dissatisfaction with its functioning, it is respectfully submitted that the political situation in Delhi was fluid, and the possibility of another party/alliance staking claim to form a Government could not be ruled out.”
The affidavit strongly rebutted the AAP’s claim that the l-G’s decision facilitated the party at the Centre to rule Delhi, as the fractured mandate in the December 2013 elections saw Congress getting eight seats, BJP 32, AAP 28 and two Independents.
With the BJP short of support of four MlAs to prove majority, both the Centre and l-G hoped and believed, as evident from their submission before Court, “this situation could very well change in the near future.”
Through its affidavit, the Centre attacked the decision of the AAP Government to resign mid-way. “If according to the petitioners they were in a majority, then it was their obligation to continue to give a Government to the people of Delhi,” it said. The Centre even asked the court to restrain from reviewing the President’s decision. It alleged “political” motive behind the petition that aimed to foreclose possibility of a popularly elected Government emerging in the near future. While the AAP counted on fresh elections to better its prospects to form a Government, the Centre decided in public interest not to force another election in Delhi within a short period of two months.