Delhi High Court Declines Mandamus to Speaker for Special Assembly Session to Table CAG Reports

Laying of CAG Reports is a Mandatory Constitutional Obligation, Delhi Court acknowledges but refuses judicial interference. Delhi High Court addressing the issue of delays in tabling 14 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in the Delhi Legislative Assembly. The Court unequivocally held that "laying the Reports of CAG in the concerned legislature is in the nature of a mandatory constitutional imperative," yet declined to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Speaker to summon a special session of the Legislative Assembly, citing procedural immunity under Article 212 of the Constitution.

The petitioners, led by Vijender Gupta, Leader of the Opposition, sought judicial intervention to address the failure of the Delhi Government to fulfill its constitutional and statutory obligations under Article 151(2) of the Constitution and Section 48 of the Government of NCT of Delhi Act, 1991 (GNCTD Act). The delay in tabling the reports, which the petitioners argued was deliberate and aimed at suppressing the findings of the CAG, was deemed a serious infraction of transparency and accountability.

The Court, while recognizing the gravity of the issue, declined to interfere in matters of legislative procedure. "It is not permissible for this Court to issue directions with regard to procedural aspects such as the timing of convening a sitting of the assembly after it has been adjourned sine die," the Court observed.

The case originated from a long delay by the Delhi Government in forwarding 14 CAG reports to the Lieutenant Governor and subsequently tabling them in the Legislative Assembly. These reports included performance audits on issues such as vehicular air pollution, public health infrastructure, regulation and supply of liquor, and the functioning of the Delhi Transport Corporation.

As per Article 151(2) of the Constitution, "The reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India relating to the accounts of a State shall be submitted to the Governor, who shall cause them to be laid before the Legislature of the State." Section 48 of the GNCTD Act echoes this constitutional mandate, requiring that such reports be tabled in the Legislative Assembly. Despite this, the petitioners alleged that the reports were deliberately withheld by the Chief Minister, who also serves as the Finance Minister, for an inordinate period, thereby obstructing legislative oversight and public accountability.

"The delay in forwarding the CAG Reports denies the public their right to know how public money has been spent by the government," argued senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the petitioners. He emphasized that withholding these reports undermines the fundamental principles of accountability and good governance enshrined in the Constitution.

In response, counsel for the Delhi Government contended that the process of laying the reports in the Assembly was underway, but no time frame is prescribed under the GNCTD Act or the Constitution.

"Laying of CAG Reports is in the Nature of a Mandatory Constitutional Imperative"
Justice Sachin Datta, while recognizing the constitutional significance of the CAG reports, emphasized their role in ensuring transparency and accountability. Citing the Supreme Court’s observations in Association of Unified Tele Services Providers v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 110, the Court stated, "The duties and powers conferred by the Constitution on the CAG are part of the basic structure of the Constitution akin to parliamentary democracy, independence of judiciary, and rule of law."

The Court further noted, "Laying the Reports of CAG in the concerned legislature is the means through which the elected representatives are entitled to have access to the CAG Reports and thereby hold the Government of the day accountable in the field of financial administration."

The Court observed that while no specific timeline is prescribed under Section 48 of the GNCTD Act for tabling CAG reports, delaying the process undermines the constitutional mandate. "It would be subversive of the constitutional mandate to withhold these reports from the legislature for an inordinately long period after the same have been forwarded by the CAG to the concerned government," the judgment stated.

Delay in Tabling the Reports and Accountability of the Executive
The Court criticized the Delhi Government for its delay in processing and forwarding the reports to the Lieutenant Governor. It noted that "most of these CAG Reports were kept pending with the respondent no.1/respondent no.2 for an inordinately long period of time."

The timeline revealed that some reports were delayed for over 490 days before being forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor. The Court remarked, "The sequence of events and the timelines reveal a disdainful disregard by the respondents/Government of NCT of Delhi of its constitutional obligations."

Despite the delay, the reports were eventually forwarded to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on December 24, 2024, after the filing of the present writ petition.

Judicial Review of Legislative Procedures and Immunity Under Article 212
On the question of whether the Court could direct the Speaker to summon a special session to table the reports, the Court held that judicial interference in such procedural matters is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution and Section 37 of the GNCTD Act. "Under Article 212(2), it is evident that there is a clear proscription that no officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers," the Court stated.

The Court further clarified that under Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, the power to reconvene the Assembly after it has been adjourned sine die lies solely with the Speaker. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India (2010) 4 SCC 1, the Court observed, "The Speaker is the guardian of the privileges of the House and is invested with the power to control and regulate the course of debate and maintain order."

The Court also considered the practical aspects of convening a special session, given that the current Assembly’s tenure is set to expire in February 2025 and elections are imminent. It noted that once tabled, the reports would require detailed examination by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), a process that would necessarily take place under the newly constituted Assembly. "In such a situation, it would be impracticable to hold a special sitting of the Assembly," the Court concluded.

While declining to issue a mandamus to the Speaker, the Court directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to take "requisite steps for laying the CAG Reports before the newly constituted Assembly, as expeditiously as possible." The Court emphasized that the government must ensure compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the Delhi Assembly, including informing the Assembly Secretariat of the business to be transacted.

The judgment reflects a careful balance between upholding constitutional principles of accountability and respecting legislative autonomy. While the Court strongly criticized the delay in tabling the CAG Reports, it refrained from overstepping judicial boundaries into legislative procedures.

Date of Decision: January 24, 2025