Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Andhra Pradesh government on Wednesday questioned before a Supreme Court bench as to how the high court could stay an SIT appointed by the YSR government in a blanket manner. The Special Investigation Team was set up by the state government to probe alleged irregularities in projects started by the previous TDP government from 2014 to 2019, including land acquisition in Amaravati.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi argued that the Executive was vested with powers to inquire into facts and such powers were separate and stood outside the distinct power to create a commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act.
The submissions were made before the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh in a plea that had challenged Andhra Pradesh HC’s September 16 ruling of staying the constitution of a cabinet sub-committee to review various policy decisions, programmes, etc., undertaken by the previous TDP government.
The HC stayed the government orders which had constituted the sub-committee and SIT prima facie finding that it was politically motivated and that the current government did not have the power to review all policies propounded by the previous government.
By a separate order delivered on September 16, the HC had also refused to implead the Union of India and the ED as respondents even though the state had wished to involve them in the investigation of the matter.Senior Advocate AM Singhvi also contended that HC had completely misguided itself by drawing an equivalence between the court’s power of judicial review and the Executive’s power to investigate. He further asserted that a successor government may investigate allegations and charges against the previous government and the existence of political rivalry does not vitiate any inquiries conducted by the successor government.
“The issuance of the impugned GOs and review of the erstwhile government’s policies was necessitated by widespread allegations of corruption in the media and elsewhere. The investigation was in the interest of the state,” he further added. The senior counsel contended that the GOs were neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.
Also in top court
SC stays HC order on feeding stray dogsThe SC on Wednesday stayed Bombay HC’s ruling which had asked people who wish to feed stray dogs to adopt them and keep them in shelter homes. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari also asked Nagpur Municipal Corporation to take steps for the public to feed the stray dogs at appropriate locations demarcated by them.
Pension benefit to women IAF officers A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, and Justices Hima Kohli and JB Pardiwala has allowed grant of one-time pensionary benefits to some Indian Air Force women SSC officers who joined IAF between 1993 and 1998 and retired from service before Delhi HC’s judgment directing grant of Permanent Commission to Women SSC officers.
NEW DELHI: The Andhra Pradesh government on Wednesday questioned before a Supreme Court bench as to how the high court could stay an SIT appointed by the YSR government in a blanket manner. The Special Investigation Team was set up by the state government to probe alleged irregularities in projects started by the previous TDP government from 2014 to 2019, including land acquisition in Amaravati.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi argued that the Executive was vested with powers to inquire into facts and such powers were separate and stood outside the distinct power to create a commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act.
The submissions were made before the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh in a plea that had challenged Andhra Pradesh HC’s September 16 ruling of staying the constitution of a cabinet sub-committee to review various policy decisions, programmes, etc., undertaken by the previous TDP government.
The HC stayed the government orders which had constituted the sub-committee and SIT prima facie finding that it was politically motivated and that the current government did not have the power to review all policies propounded by the previous government.
By a separate order delivered on September 16, the HC had also refused to implead the Union of India and the ED as respondents even though the state had wished to involve them in the investigation of the matter.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi also contended that HC had completely misguided itself by drawing an equivalence between the court’s power of judicial review and the Executive’s power to investigate. He further asserted that a successor government may investigate allegations and charges against the previous government and the existence of political rivalry does not vitiate any inquiries conducted by the successor government.
“The issuance of the impugned GOs and review of the erstwhile government’s policies was necessitated by widespread allegations of corruption in the media and elsewhere. The investigation was in the interest of the state,” he further added. The senior counsel contended that the GOs were neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.
Also in top court
SC stays HC order on feeding stray dogs
The SC on Wednesday stayed Bombay HC’s ruling which had asked people who wish to feed stray dogs to adopt them and keep them in shelter homes. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari also asked Nagpur Municipal Corporation to take steps for the public to feed the stray dogs at appropriate locations demarcated by them.
Pension benefit to women IAF officers
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, and Justices Hima Kohli and JB Pardiwala has allowed grant of one-time pensionary benefits to some Indian Air Force women SSC officers who joined IAF between 1993 and 1998 and retired from service before Delhi HC’s judgment directing grant of Permanent Commission to Women SSC officers.
