SC asks Centre to take quick decision on fate of Delhi Assembly

August 5, 2014

New Delhi, Aug 5: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to take a decision on dissolution of Delhi Assembly "one way or another" within five weeks, questioning it for continuing to keep the house in suspended animation when no party is coming forward to form the government.

"One party says it does not want to form government. Other says it cannot. Third party has no strength. In a situation like this why should people suffer?" it asked.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice H L Dattu also asked as why MLAs be paid from taxpayers' money for sitting idle due to assembly kept in suspended animation.

The apex court asked Additional Solicitor General P L Narasimha to convey the "feeling" of the court on the issue to appropriate authority.

"I think they(authorities) will take a decision," Justice Dattu said while adjourning the plea of Aam Aadmi Party for dissolution of assembly for five weeks.

"Why should tax payers money be paid to legislators who are not doing anything? Authority concerned should think and act," the bench also comprising justices J Chelameswar, A K Sikri, R K Agrawal and Arun Mishra said.

It asked the Centre what steps it has taken to explore the possibility of government formation during the last five months. President's rule was imposed on Delhi on February 17 with no party coming forward coming forward to stake claim for government formation after AAP government headed by leader Arvind Kejriwal resigned.

The petition filed by AAP sought a direction to the Lt Governor to dissolve Delhi Assembly and hold fresh polls.

It has challenged the decision to impose President's rule in Delhi on the recommendation of LG Najeeb Jung alleging that it was done to protect Congress leaders and former Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit from corruption charges.

The petition has said the order to impose President's rule was "illegal, arbitrary and in violation" of Article 14 of the Constitution as after the resignation of Arvind Kejriwal government neither BJP nor Congress were in a position to form the government and they had already expressed their unwillingness in this regard.

It has further raised constitutional questions to keep the assembly under suspended animation by ignoring the categorical recommendation of the majority government of the NCT of Delhi for dissolving the House.

BJP had emerged the single largest party after the assembly polls in December last year with 32 seats including ally Akali Dal's one MLA in the 70-member House.

BJP fell four seats short of a simple majority and had refused to form government, saying it did not have the numbers and will not resort to any "unfair means" to take the reins.

AAP with 28 MLAs had later formed the government with support of eight Congress MLAs. AAP's strength has also come down to 27 after expulsion of party MLA Vinod Kumar Binny.

BJP's number came down to 28 in the House in May after three of its legislators Harsh Vardhan, Ramesh Bidhuri and Pervesh Verma were elected to Lok Sabha. With the resignation of three MLAs, the strength of the assembly also went down to 67.

"We are not looking at political party before us. We are looking at the Delhi citizen's point of view...he may say he has elected a representative and he is drawing salary from taxpayers' money and sitting idle," the bench said.

It, however, turned down the plea of AAP which submitted that apex court should pass order so that elections in Delhi are held along with that of four other states later this year.

The apex court said it is for the appropriate authority to take a decision.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments