New Delhi [India], December 24 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Delhi Government, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and other respondents regarding a petition filed by BJP MLAs.

The petition requested a directive to convene a special session of the Delhi Assembly to present 14 CAG reports. During the hearing, the Delhi Government informed the Court that all 14 reports had been sent to the Speaker on Tuesday (i.e., today).

Also Read | Gujarat Child Trafficking Case: Father Sells His Minor Daughter to Rajasthan Man for INR 4 Lakh To Settle Nephew's Debt.

BJP MLA Vijender Gupta and his counsel argued that, as a member of the House, it was his right to receive and debate the reports. They urged the Court to direct the Speaker to call a special session. However, the Court stated that it could not issue an immediate order to the Speaker and emphasised the need to hear both parties before making a decision.

The Delhi Government opposed the petition, alleging political motivations, and announced it would file a counter affidavit.

Also Read | Sanjeevani Yojana: BJP's MP Bansuri Swaraj Alleges AAP Government Fooling Elderly, Claims 'Health Secretary Has Confirmed There Is No Such Health Insurance Scheme'.

Gupta's counsel refuted these claims, stressing that the issue concerned government accountability and needed resolution before election dates were announced. The Court has adjourned the matter for further hearing in the second week of January.

Several BJP MLAs from Delhi have approached the Delhi High Court, seeking directions to the Delhi Government to forward 14 Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports to the Speaker of the Delhi Legislative Assembly in a time-bound manner.

The MLAs also sought a directive for the Speaker to take all necessary actions under Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950, to convene a special sitting of the Legislative Assembly and table the reports at the earliest. The petition emphasises the need for timely fulfilment of constitutional obligations related to the presentation of CAG reports in the Assembly.

The plea stated that after conducting its audit, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) promptly submitted its reports to the Secretary of the Department of Finance, who subsequently forwarded them to the Chief Minister/Finance Minister.

Notably, some reports remained with the Chief Minister/Finance Minister for 490 days, while one report was pending for 497 days. Due to the delay in placing the 14 CAG reports before the Lieutenant Governor, the Lieutenant Governor was unable to fulfil his constitutional duty of ensuring these reports were laid before the Legislative Assembly.

The plea further stated that the petitioners have made multiple concerted efforts both inside and outside the Legislative Assembly to address the issue. Inside the Assembly, they moved motions such as Calling Attention (Rule 54), Short Duration Discussion (Rule 55), and Notice for Adjournment (Rule 59).

Outside the Assembly, they sent communications to the Speaker and raised the matter publicly through protests outside the residence of the Chief Minister/Finance Minister. The petitioners have consistently called for a special sitting to discuss and deliberate on the CAG reports.

The plea also noted that on December 19, 2024, the petitioners protested against the unconstitutional and undemocratic functioning of the Legislative Assembly. They highlighted the non-submission of the CAG reports and the failure to convene a special sitting, despite the Government of NCT of Delhi's statement before the Hon'ble High Court on December 16, 2024.

On the same day, the petitioners met with the Speaker, and the Delhi Government submitted a memorandum to the Speaker. The memorandum emphasised the GNCTD's commitment to sending the CAG reports to the Speaker within two or three days and urged the Speaker to convene a special sitting of the Assembly to table the CAG audit reports. (ANI)

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)