New Delhi: On Monday, the Delhi High Court granted permission for the BJP-led government in the capital to withdraw its petition against the Lieutenant Governor’s decision, which allowed the Delhi Police to select special public prosecutors for the cases related to the February 2020 riots and the violence during the Republic Day celebrations in 2021.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated, “The application is allowed, and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” This ruling was issued after the counsel for the Lieutenant Governor did not raise any objections to the withdrawal.
The previous Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government had contested the Lieutenant Governor’s decision, arguing that allowing the Delhi Police to appoint special public prosecutors (SPPs) would compromise the integrity of a fair trial in cases stemming from the farmers’ protests on January 26, 2021, and the Delhi riots.
The court noted that the appointment of special public prosecutors is a routine procedure and does not warrant exceptional measures, such as a referral to the President. It emphasized that the Lieutenant Governor had “no sound reason” for seeking presidential intervention, especially since the government had already agreed to appoint independent SPPs.
The former government further contended that the selection of SPPs by the Delhi Police presented a “serious conflict of interest.” The Lieutenant Governor’s order regarding these appointments, issued on July 23, 2021, was alleged to jeopardize the fairness of the trial, as the SPPs were taking over cases and displacing regular public prosecutors.
Consequently, the government sought urgent intervention from the court.
The Lieutenant Governor’s order referenced the proviso to Article 239-AA(4) of the Constitution in his communication to the President, which remains pending.
The government’s appeal also contested the notification issued on July 26, 2021, as well as the Centre’s order dated August 4, 2021, which supported the Lieutenant Governor’s perspective and sanctioned the appointments in question.
The appeal argued that these appointments contravened established legal principles and infringed upon the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.
