Delhi Kejriwal govt to table Delhi Economic Survey tomorrow

During the hearing, the High Court had asked the privilege committee to hold its hand from taking action.

New Delhi: Delhi Finance Minister, Atishi, will table Delhi’s Economic Survey (2023-2024) in the Assembly on Friday. According to the List of Business mentioned in the Delhi Legislative Assembly circular, tomorrow, the house will discuss the issue of “Demolition of Houses of the Poor across Delhi by Central Agencies like DDA, ASI, LNDO, and Railways.”

The budget session of the Delhi assembly began on February 15, 2024, with the Lieutenant Governor outlining the policies, programmes and work of the AAP-led Delhi government in the fields of education, health, transport, social welfare, infrastructure, etc.

---

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved its on order on pleas of seven BJP MLAs who challenged their suspension from Delhi legislative Assembly for an indefinite period. During the hearing, the High Court had asked the privilege committee to hold its hand from taking action.

The matter was referred to the committee after the suspension. BJP MLAs Vijender Gupta, Ajay Kumar Mahavar, Abhay Verma, Anil Kumar Vajpayee, OP Sharma, Mohan Singh Bisht and Jitendra Mahajan had challenged their suspension.

These seven MLAs have been suspended for allegedly disturbing the Delhi Assembly on February 15 during an address by the LG. Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved the order on the pleas after hearing the arguements by the counsels for MLAs and Speaker Delhi Legislative Assembly.

The bench has asked the counsels to file written submissions. The High Court reserved its order after hearing the arguements by Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, Kirti Uppal and Pavan Narang for the MLAs. Senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog and advocate Sameer Vasisht appeared for the respondent.

It is contended that the motion for suspension of MLAs was unconstitutional and violative of their constitutional rights under Article 14, 19 and 22 of Constitution of India.

The senior advocates submitted that they were punished for their alleged misconduct by marshalling out by the Speaker. Then, how can a motion be passed in this regard.

How can they be punished twice for a single act of violation, the counsel argued. It was further argued that in passing the motion the procedures were not followed as it had mentioned of MLAs against whom it is passed. They matter was also referred to privilege committee.