The Delhi High Court in Delhi Commission For Protection Of Child Rights v. Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi observed and has informed that no order has been passed by Lieutenant Governor, LG Vinai Kumar Saxena for stopping the funding of Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, DCPCR.
The bench headed by Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case was hearing the petition moved by the child rights body against stopping of its funds pending an inquiry and a special audit over allegations of ‘misuse of government funds.’
The counsel submitted before the court that no order was ever passed by the LG stopping DCPCR’s funding and that the press release annexed in the petition on the action purportedly ordered by LG was never issued by the LG office.
The counsel appearing before the court stated that this so called press release has never been issued by the LG. This is quite serious.
Therefore, the court then asked the counsel to put his submissions on an affidavit and file the same within four days.
In the present case, the petition is moved by DCPCR’s in November last year had issued the press note approving the Delhi Government’s Women and Child Development Department’s proposal to initiate an inquiry and ordered a special audit over alleged misuse of government funds by it.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for DCPCR earlier stated that the allocation of funds has been brought to a grinding halt.
Therefore, the petition has come to the Delhi High Court after being transferred from the Supreme Court, wherein the court observed that not issue between the Delhi Government and LG could be covered under an Article 32 petition before the Apex Court.
The petition stated that that insufficient funding severely threatens the programmes of the child rights body and that such an action threatens its functional independence as well.
Adding to it, it has been stated that the inquiry is “extraneous” and a special audit is not within the scheme of the Commission of the Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.
Further, the plea moved stated that the same has been initiated only after Petitioner No 1 i.e., the DCPCR moved against the school run by Respondent No 4 i.e., the Kuldeep Chahal, who is a political person associated in a leadership capacity with the party in dispensation at Centre that advises Respondent No 1, LG.