Today, the Supreme Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR), challenging the decision of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi to halt funding for the DCPCR and initiate an inquiry and audit against the commission. The bench, comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, directed Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Commission, to approach the High Court instead. The Chief Justice emphasized, "Mr. Sankaranarayanan, please go to the High Court. Why should we entertain a petition under Article 32 over here?"
In response, Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan acknowledged the suggestion but highlighted the unique circumstances of the case. He argued, "Now let me tell you what is likely to happen if I go to the Delhi High Court. We are on the last day here and have a week in Delhi High Court before the winter vacations. If I go to the Delhi High Court and if they issue notice, it goes to January, some Judgement comes, and after that, I am back here."
Expressing concerns about the delays in the High Court, Sankaranarayanan pointed out the potential impact on the DCPCR, whose funds had been frozen. He stated, "Every single one of these Delhi matters, this is what has happened, it has always been your verdict."
Despite these arguments, the Chief Justice remained firm in redirecting the case to the High Court, emphasizing the frequency of disputes involving the Lieutenant Governor (LG) reaching the Supreme Court. He remarked, "What is happening is that in every dispute, all and sundry involving LG is coming here. We have entertained some dealing with broader constitutional issues; now this must go to the High Court."
Referring to the prayers made by the DCPCR, the Chief Justice highlighted, "DCPCR says that... well stop conducting an audit, don't freeze our funds." Sankaranarayanan clarified, "You conduct whatever you want but don't freeze the money. How can 6 million children of the state be told that not a penny is going to come to the Commission?"
Despite these pleas, the Chief Justice reiterated the need to approach the Delhi High Court, citing the recurring instances of disputes between the Delhi Government and the Lieutenant Governor reaching the Supreme Court. He questioned, "Why are you bucking the Delhi High Court? You know everything between the Delhi Government and the Lieutenant Governor is coming here every 2 days."
The Senior Counsel defended the DCPCR's position, stating, "There isn't any bucking of the Delhi High Court. They are freezing everything. What the Delhi government is doing is between two of them, but I am an independent commission. I am required by the Parliament to function independently."
Ultimately, considering the nature of the grievance, the Supreme Court concluded that a Petition under Article 226 in the High Court would be the appropriate remedy. However, Sankaranarayanan argued that the Petition had already been filed before the Supreme Court on November 28, 2023, and the tenure of the Members and Chairperson had ended on December 1, 2023. As a result, initiating a fresh Petition before the High Court at this point seemed challenging.
In response to these submissions, the Supreme Court directed the Registry to transfer the proceedings to the High Court of Delhi, renumbering it as a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court disposed of the Petition, subject to the grant of the above liberty to approach the High Court.
TAGS: Article 32 High Court Delhi Government Children's rights Frozen funds Constitutional issues
