Delhi Police can choose who will represent it: ASG Aman Lekhi argues before Delhi HC in Faisal Farooq bail as Delhi Govt raises objections

As the row between Central Government and Delhi Government over who would represent Delhi Police continued, the Delhi High Court today vacated its order staying the bail granted to Delhi Riots accused, Faisal Farooq. (State vs Faisal Farooq).The case pertains to the challenge to the bail granted to a Delhi riots accused, Faisal Farooq..A plea for cancellation of the bail was soon preferred by the Delhi Police through counsel appointed by the Central Government i.e the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi. .When the challenge to the bail order was taken up by the Court for the first time, both Delhi Government Standing Counsel Rahul Mehra and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had entered appearance..SG Tushar Mehta seeks permission to withdraw his name from a Delhi riots case out of disgust after Standing Counsel Rahul Mehra's objection.While Mehta claimed that he was under instructions from the Central Government to file the present petition and also appear before the High Court, Mehra argued that Central Government had no power to file the petition against order..On the next date of hearing, while none appeared for the Delhi Government, ASG Lekhi informed the Court that he would represent the State in the matter and the matter was adjourned. .[Delhi riots] I will appear for State: ASG Aman Lekhi tells Delhi High Court in Faisal Farooq bail case.On the third date of hearing ,which was yesterday, the controversy was revived as Additional Public Prosecutor Rajesh Mahajan pointed out that the petition had not been filed through the office of the Delhi Government's standing counsel, though was filed "in the name of the State". .[Delhi Riots] Delhi HC directs Central Govt counsel to show letter from Lt-Governor authorizing him to file plea in Faisal Farooq bail case.The Court ultimately directed the Central Government filing counsel, Standing Counsel Amit Majahan to place on record all documents from the Lt-Governor which authorized him to file the petition in the instant case..Today, Additional Solitcitor General Aman Lekhi placed befor the Court a communication dated July 1, 2020, from the Office of Deputy Secretary, Home Department to the DCP (legal), Delhi Police stating that the names of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan and Advocate Rajat Nair had been cleared to file petitions and to appear in Delhi riots cases. .It was stated that this communication was in continuation of earlier letters on the issue. .Standing Counsel Rahul Mehra, however, argued that the letter was completely illegal and void ab initio as the appointment was not made after the aid and advice of the council of ministers of the Delhi Government. .Mehra stated that the unilateral appointment of special prosecutors was impermissible in the light of the three judgments that were passed in the Delhi vs Centre cases, including the 2018 judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. .In a bid to put the controversy to rest, the Court decided to hear the parties at length on the issue..ASG Lekhi broadly argued that the series of judgments passed in Delhi vs Centre cases would not be applicable to the present case as they specifically dealt with the power of the State Government to appoint public prosecutor under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. .The present instance pertains to the appointment of law officers in a bail cancellation matter, which is not under Section 24, ASG Lekhi stated as he claimed that the issue of the entitlement of law officers to appear in cases where the Central Government had an interest was not considered by the courts in Delhi vs Centre cases. .Given that the cases pertained to offences under Unlawful Assembly Prevention Act, ASG Lekhi said that the entitlement of the Central Government to appoint special counsel could not be ruled out in view of Entry 1, List III. .He inter alia argued that as a client, the Delhi Police had a "constitutionally sanctioned" right to choose who would represent it. .The submissions were vehemently opposed by Standing Counsel Mehra as he contended that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly either. .Mehra stated that the issue of who would represent Delhi Police was res integra. .He argued that if the stand of ASG Lkehi was accepted, "CrPC would be flown to the wind". .Mehra asserted that Delhi Police was not an "ordinary client" who could choose any lawyer. .Investigation and prosecution cannot be hand in glove. If this is so then God save Article 21 in this country..Role of Prosecutor is of officer of court.. There are checks and balances in CrPC.Rahul Mehra.He also asked the Central Government to explain as to under which law did it get the power to file the petition in the first place in the name of the State. .Under which law did you get the power to file a petition by impersonating the State? Do we have Rule of Law?he questioned. .While the Court initially expressed its inclination to refer the issue to an appropriate Bench for adjudication, it ultimately directed the parties to file their submissions on the issue of appointment of special counsel and listed the matter for further arguments. .Since the accused is already in custody in another matter, the earlier order staying bail was vacated. .Farooq was represented by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta. . The matter would be heard next on July 22.