Okay, so I think that the @AamAadmiParty has been copping some unfair criticism for the appointment of the Solicitor General as counsel in the Delhi riots case. A brief thread about my understanding of the legal position ( @PrateekKChadha can correct me if I'm wrong.)

(1/n)

The appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor is within the competence of the NCT government. However, the constitutional position is that if the LG "disagrees" with Delhi's council of ministers on an issue, he can refer the dispute to the President for his decision.

(2/n)

When the Supreme Court was hearing the dispute between Delhi and the centre, lawyers for the Delhi government specifically asked the Court to demarcate the range of issues on which the LG could "disagree" with the elected government and refer to the President.

(3/n)

Because obviously, if the LG could "disagree" on any decision, there was little point in having an elected government in the first place. The Court agreed with the principle. It stated that the LG could not interfere on "day-to-day matters of administration." But unfortunately +

+ the Court refused to lay down any specific rules, and left this matter to be resolved through "statesmanship", to be exhibited by all parties. What does this mean in practice? It means that there's no *legal* bar upon the LG from "disagreeing" +referring to the President. (4/n)

Which is what seems to have happened in this case. Now, in an ideal world, the Delhi government could move SC and get a clarification that the appointment of a Prosecutor is indeed part of day-to-day administration, and not something the LG is entitled to "disagree" with. (5/n)

However, that is not the world we live in, and I'm not sure if that's a genuine, feasible option before the Delhi government right now - not least because the SC has shown zero interest in resolving the legal conflict that arose out of its own judgment in this case. (6/n)

So if there's a problem here, it's a problem that after five years of litigation, the demarcation of powers between the Delhi government and the centre is still entirely vague, and - as I've said before - when the law is vague, it is an invitation to the more powerful party to +

+ exploit that loophole. That more powerful party here is the central government.

(7/7)