“Dragged your feet…”: Delhi High Court Reprimands AAP Government Over Delay in CAG Report on Liquor Scam

The Delhi High Court on Monday slammed the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Delhi government for mishandling a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) on the ongoing liquor scam. The court expressed concerns over the delay in presenting the report to the Delhi Assembly, particularly as the issue involved serious allegations, including the arrests of key AAP leaders such as former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and senior leader Manish Sisodia.

A single-judge bench, led by Justice Sachin Datta, accused the Delhi government of "dragging its feet" in handling the CAG report, which had been linked to the government's excise policy. The court noted that the delay raised doubts about the government's intentions. “The way you have dragged your feet raises doubts about your bona fides,” said Justice Datta. “You should have been prompt in sending it (the report) to the Speaker and initiating a discussion on the floor of the assembly,” he added, stressing the need for transparency and accountability.

The report, which revealed a revenue loss of Rs 2,026 crore to the state exchequer, highlighted multiple issues with the excise policy, including deviations from the policy's objectives, a lack of transparency in pricing, and irregularities in issuing licenses.

In its defense, the Delhi government raised concerns about holding a special session with elections around the corner. The government had argued that convening a session before the election announcement would be impractical. The Delhi Assembly Secretariat had earlier informed the court that tabling the CAG reports in the assembly would not be productive, given the assembly's term was set to expire in February.

The matter was brought before the court following a petition from BJP MLAs, including Vijender Gupta, who called for a special session to present 14 CAG reports. Gupta argued that, as a member of the House, he had the right to debate and discuss the reports. He urged the court to direct the Speaker to convene a special session. However, the court declined to issue an immediate order, noting that both sides needed to be heard before any decision could be made.

The Delhi government responded by calling the petition politically motivated and vowed to file a counter-affidavit. Gupta’s lawyer countered, emphasizing that the issue was not political but about ensuring government accountability and that it should be resolved before the election announcements.