Power To Reconvene Sitting Of Legislative Assembly After It’s Adjourned Sine Die Without Prorogation Is Sole Prerogative Of Speaker: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court was deciding a Writ Petition seeking direction to forward 14 CAG Reports in a time-bound manner and for summoning the special sitting of the Legislative Assembly.

The Delhi High Court reiterated that the power to reconvene sitting of the Legislative Assembly after it is adjourned sine die without prorogation is the sole prerogative of the Speaker of the Assembly.
The Court reiterated thus in a Writ Petition seeking direction to forward 14 CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) Reports in a time bound manner and for summoning the special sitting of the Legislative Assembly and to table those reports.
A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed, “On a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Government of NCT Act, 1991, the “Rules of Procedure” and the legal position as enunciated by the Supreme Court, this Court does not find it tenable to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to summon a special sitting of the Legislative Assembly. … it has been unmistakably laid down by the Supreme Court that the power to reconvene sitting/s of the Legislative Assembly after it has been adjourned sine die without prorogation, is the sole prerogative of the Speaker of the Assembly. It is not permissible for this Court to issue directions with regard thereto.”
The Bench said that the primary onus to take requisite steps for laying the concerned CAG report in the Assembly is on the Government and not on the Speaker.
Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani, Jayant Mehta, Pavan Narang, and Anil Soni represented the Petitioners while Senior Advocates Rahul Mehra and Sudhir Nandrajog represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
It was the grievance of the Petitioners that the Chief Minister, Government of NCT of Delhi was remiss in not forwarding the 14 CAG Reports to the Speaker and that the consequent non-tabling of the said reports before the Legislative Assembly of Delhi amounts to a serious infraction of mandatory Constitutional requirements. The Petitioner No. 1 Vijender Gupta was the Leader of Opposition (LOP) in the Legislative Assembly and the other Petitioners were also Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs).
Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India mandates that CAG Reports relating to the accounts of a State shall be submitted to the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor, who “shall cause them to be laid before the Legislature of the State”. It was emphasized on behalf of the Petitioners that the said provision is designed to promote accountability, transparency, and good governance through high quality auditing and accounting. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Delhi Government, the Petitioners approached the High Court and sought directions to the Department of Finance to send the CAG Reports to the Lieutenant Governor.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the submissions from both sides, noted, “It was only on 24.12.2024 that the respondent no. 2 addressed a communication (supra) to the Secretary, Legislative Assembly, communicating its intention to lay the concerned reports on the table of the House. At this stage, there is no material on the basis of which it can be presumed by this Court that no follow up action shall be taken for the purpose of laying the CAG reports as and when the Assembly reconvenes.”
The Court said that the judicial review cannot be extended to procedural aspects such as the timing of convening a sitting of the assembly after it has been adjourned sine die.
“… the concerned CAG reports have not yet been the subject matter of any “proceedings in the legislature” which warrant any judicial review … the term of the current Legislative Assembly is about to expire and elections for the purpose of electing the next Legislative Assembly, are barely a few days away. In such a situation, it would be impracticable to hold a special sitting of the assembly”, it added.
The Court further enunciated that once the CAG reports are tabled in the House, they have to be examined and scrutinised by the PAC, as contemplated under Rule 192 of the Rules of Procedure and given that the Legislative Assembly is at the fag end of its current term, the examination and scrutiny by the PAC will now take place only after the newly elected Assembly (pursuant to the upcoming elections) is re-convened.
“… this Court is not inclined to accept the prayers of the petitioners that a mandamus be issued to the respondent No. 3/Speaker for summoning a special session of the Legislative Assembly at this stage”, it concluded.
The Court directed that once the Legislative Assembly is constituted and summoned pursuant to upcoming elections, requisite steps shall be taken by the Government of NCT of Delhi for the purpose of laying the CAG Reports as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition.
Cause Title- Vijender Gupta & Ors. v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:377)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani, Jayant Mehta, Pavan Narang, Anil Soni, Advocates Neeraj, Satya Ranjan Swain, Ravi Sharma, Ajay Awasthi, Kautilya Birat, Sanjay Pal, Rudra Paliwal, Ankush Kapoor, Soumyadip Chakraborty, Sachin Saraswat, Vaibhav Thaledi, Himanshu Sethi, Vikramaditya Sanghi, and Sushil Kr. Pandey.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Rahul Mehra, Sudhir Nandrajog, ASCs Rishikesh Kumar, Ankita Singh, Udit Malik, Advocates Divyam Nandrajog, Sheenu Priya, Vikash Saini, Atik Gill, Sudhir, Palak Sharma, C. Velmurugan, Rima Rao, Bani Dikshit, Uddhav Khanna, Anirudh Sharma, Dhruva Vig, Vridhi Kashyap, Shreeyash U. Lalit, Himanshu Vats, Runjhun Garg, Lavam Tyagi, and Angad Pahal.