Kiran Bedi, former Lieutenant-Governor of Puducherry, on Wednesday claimed in the Madras High Court that corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in the Union Territory were irked because she had implemented her own decisions, notwithstanding the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Claiming that she had acted only in terms of the powers conferred upon the Administrator (Lieutenant-Governor) under the Union Territories Act of 1963, Ms. Bedi asserted that all her actions were taken without fear or favour and purely in the interest of the Union Territory.
She pointed out that Section 44 of the 1963 Act clearly stated that if the Administrator of the Union Territory was not in agreement with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, he/she could refer the matter to the President and implement his/her decision till the President takes a final call.
The submissions were made in response to a contempt of court petition moved against her by former Chief Minister V. Narayanasamy for having reportedly disobeyed orders passed on March 11, 2020 by then Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad.
In that verdict, delivered on a writ appeal, the judges held that the role of Puducherry’s Lieutenant Governor and that of an elected government in the Union Territory were intertwined as per law and, therefore, they were expected to act in unison and not in division.
Claiming that Ms. Bedi continued to function in an autocratic manner and did not heed the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers even after the authoritative pronouncement by the first Division Bench, Mr. Narayanasamy urged the High Court to punish her for contempt.
Since Chief Justice Sahi had retired from service and Justice Prasad had got transferred to the Delhi High Court, the contempt petition was listed before a Division Bench of Justices T. Raja and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup on Wednesday. Senior Counsel P. Wilson represented the former Chief Minister.
Advocate V. Chandrasekharan, representing Ms. Bedi, served a copy of the counter-affidavit on the petitioner’s counsel and, thereafter, the judges decided to take up the petition for hearing on March 18. In the counter, the former Lt. Governor questioned the maintainability of the contempt petition.
She said Mr. Narayanasamy was not a party to the writ appeal proceedings, and both he and she had demitted office in May and February 2021, respectively. If at all someone could file a contempt plea, it could be only the incumbent Chief Minister and not the present petitioner, she added.
Dehors the defence taken by her on merits, and stating that she had not wilfully or wantonly disobeyed any court order, Ms. Bedi tendered an unconditional apology to the court in the event of it finding her guilty of having committed any act of contempt.
