File photo of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia
The Delhi government has moved the High Court against the appointment of police officer MK Meena as the chief of its Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). It wants the removal of Mr Meena, a Joint Commissioner of Police from the bureau till the main petition of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government challenging the Centre's notification of May 21 is decided by the Court.
On June 9, Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung had appointed Mr Meena to head the anti-graft unit, who outranked SS Yadav, an officer handpicked by chief minister Arvind Kejriwal.
AAP claims that no cases have been registered by ACB since Mr Meena took over the reins. Delhi convenor of AAP, Dilip Pandey said, "We will have no option but to form squads comprising party volunteers and expose corruption in the city. We will tell people that the Centre is not allowing us to register an FIR against corruption".
The government had attempted to stall Mr Meena's appointment, alleging that it was illegal as there was no position in the ACB for him to fill. The Vigilance Department of the Delhi government, which oversees functioning of the ACB, had issued a letter asking him to revert to his Delhi Police assignment.
But Mr Meena had refused to do that. He wrote back in a letter that he had already taken over as ACB chief and threatened legal action if he was stopped from attending work.
This is the latest clash between chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Mr Jung over key appointments in the capital. Mr Jung insists the final say on appointments is vested in him; Mr Kejriwal says an elected head of government is entitled to choose members of his team.
Last month, the Delhi High Court had called the notification 'suspect' in which the Centre had said that the Lieutenant Governor is the final authority on appointments of senior officials. The Court had noted that the Lieutenant Governor, who represents the Centre, is "bound to act upon the aid and advice" of the Delhi council of Ministers.
The 'suspect' tag was challenged by the Centre in the Supreme Court, which had said that the High Court must hear the case independently and not get influenced by any observations.