HC gives AAP govt 2 weeks to decide on removal of DMC chairperson as recommended by LG

The Delhi High Court Thursday gave the AAP government two weeks to take action against Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC) chairperson Zafarul Islam Khan as directed by the Lieutenant Governor on April 30 with regard to an allegedly objectionable social media post by him.

A bench of Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula gave the Delhi government two weeks to take the decision as no steps have been taken till now after LG Anil Baijal's letter of April 30 to the administrative department of the Delhi government to initiate action against Khan under Section 4 of DMC Act.

The section provides for removal of the DMC chairperson after giving him a proper hearing.

The high court's order came on the plea by a social worker, Vikram Gahlot, challenging the constitutionality of the DMC Act and seeking Khan's removal.

Gahlot's lawyer, Dhananjai Jain, said the court issued notice to the Centre, the Delhi government and the LG's office seeking their stand on the petition and listed the matter for further hearing on June 22.

Delhi government additional standing counsel Anupam Srivastava said the bench has issued notice in the matter to the extent it challenges the validity of the DMC Act.

He said that regarding the removal of Khan from his post, the court has given the Delhi government two weeks to take a decision.

The detailed order of the court is awaited.

During the proceedings held via video conferencing, Srivastava placed before the court a status report which stated that the administrative department has processed the file "for taking action as per law with the proposal to seek reply from the Secretary, DMC regarding reply from Zafarul Islam Khan" with regard to the social media post by him.

Gahlot, in his plea, has contended that the Delhi Legislative Assembly did not have the powers to enact the DMC Act and therefore, the statute be declared ultra vires of the Constitution and struck down.

He has also contended that since the Act was not valid, the appointments made under it, including that of the chairman, would also be invalid.