Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Asserting that the remit of the special investigation team (SIT) set up by the YSRC government to probe alleged irregularities in projects started by the previous Telugu Desam regime from 2014 to 2019, including land acquisition in Amaravati, was ‘extremely narrow’, the Andhra Pradesh State government on Wednesday questioned as to how could the High Court stay the SIT in a blanket manner.
Senior advocate AM Singhvi appearing for the State, argued that executive was vested with power to probe facts and this power was separate and stood outside the distinct power to create commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act.
The submissions were made before the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh, in a plea that had challenged the AP HC’s September 16 ruling of staying the constitution of Cabinet Sub-Committee to review various policy decisions, programmes, etc., undertaken by the erstwhile TDP regime and SIT to probe alleged irregularities. The HC had stayed the government orders which had constituted the Cabinet Sub-Committee and SIT prima facie finding that it was politically motivated and that the current government does not have the power to carte blanche review all policies propounded by the previous government.
By a separate order delivered on September 16, the HC had also refused to impleadment of the Centre and ED as respondents even though the State had wished to involve them in the investigation of the matter.
Singhvi had also contended that the HC had completely misguided itself by drawing an equivalence between the court’s power of judicial review and the executive’s power to investigate. He further asserted that a successor government may investigate allegations and charges against the erstwhile government and the existence of political rivalry does not vitiate any inquiries conducted by the successor government.
“The issuance of the impugned GOs and review of the erstwhile government’s policies was necessitated by widespread allegations of corruption in the media and elsewhere. The investigation was in the interest of the State,” he further added.
For the TDP leader, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave submitted that the GOs were nothing but roving and fishing inquiry.“It’s nothing but criminal investigation and what they say is that it’s nothing but administrative action. This is arbitrary. There is no offence disclosed as to what the SIT has to investigate,” he further added.
NEW DELHI: Asserting that the remit of the special investigation team (SIT) set up by the YSRC government to probe alleged irregularities in projects started by the previous Telugu Desam regime from 2014 to 2019, including land acquisition in Amaravati, was ‘extremely narrow’, the Andhra Pradesh State government on Wednesday questioned as to how could the High Court stay the SIT in a blanket manner.
Senior advocate AM Singhvi appearing for the State, argued that executive was vested with power to probe facts and this power was separate and stood outside the distinct power to create commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act.
The submissions were made before the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh, in a plea that had challenged the AP HC’s September 16 ruling of staying the constitution of Cabinet Sub-Committee to review various policy decisions, programmes, etc., undertaken by the erstwhile TDP regime and SIT to probe alleged irregularities. The HC had stayed the government orders which had constituted the Cabinet Sub-Committee and SIT prima facie finding that it was politically motivated and that the current government does not have the power to carte blanche review all policies propounded by the previous government.
By a separate order delivered on September 16, the HC had also refused to impleadment of the Centre and ED as respondents even though the State had wished to involve them in the investigation of the matter.
Singhvi had also contended that the HC had completely misguided itself by drawing an equivalence between the court’s power of judicial review and the executive’s power to investigate. He further asserted that a successor government may investigate allegations and charges against the erstwhile government and the existence of political rivalry does not vitiate any inquiries conducted by the successor government.
“The issuance of the impugned GOs and review of the erstwhile government’s policies was necessitated by widespread allegations of corruption in the media and elsewhere. The investigation was in the interest of the State,” he further added.
For the TDP leader, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave submitted that the GOs were nothing but roving and fishing inquiry.“It’s nothing but criminal investigation and what they say is that it’s nothing but administrative action. This is arbitrary. There is no offence disclosed as to what the SIT has to investigate,” he further added.
