Madras High Court on Tuesday held that Puducherry lieutenant governor Kiran Bedi “cannot interfere” in the day-to-day affairs of the elected government of the Union territory, saying the restrictions imposed on the government of Delhi were not applicable in this case.

Decisions taken by the council of ministers and the chief minister are “binding” on secretaries and other officials, Justice R. Mahadevan said.

Congress chief minister V. Narayanasamy, who has been at loggerheads with Bedi over various issues, called the decision a “victory” of democracy.

“We are examining the judgment, after which we shall take a view,” Bedi said in a WhatsApp message to the media.

Justice Mahadevan’s ruling came as he allowed a petition filed by K. Laksminarayanan, a Congress MLA, and set aside two communications the Union ministry of home affairs had issued in January and June 2017 “elevating” the power of the administrator.

The judge referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment on the tussle between Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lt Governor Anil Baijal and said the restrictions imposed on the government of Delhi were not applicable to the government of Puducherry.

“The apex court has clearly held that there is a distinction between the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Puducherry,” the judge said.

Although Puducherry is not a state, the legislative Assembly would have the same powers as that of a state, he said.

“The administrator cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the government. The decision taken by the council of ministers and the chief minister is binding on the secretaries and other officials,” the judge said in his order.

The petitioner, Lakshminarayanan, an elected member of the Puducherry Assembly, had submitted that there were political differences between the elected government of Puducherry and the Centre.

“She (Bedi) conducts review meetings with the officials directly, bypassing the elected government, carries out inspections and issues on-the-spot orders and thereby runs a parallel and diametrically opposite government within the government,” he claimed.

The petitioner also alleged that the administrator interfered in the day-to-day administration of the territorial government and its policies and programmes.

The judge observed that the court had already discussed the role of secretaries. “Though they may report to the administrator nominated by the President, still they cannot shed their duty to the decision of the council of ministers taken as per the procedure laid down in the Government of Union Territories Act and the Rules of Business of the Government of Pondicherry, 1963,” the judge said, adding “they cannot jump the gun and run a parallel government under the directions of the administrator.”

The court said elected representatives of the government play a major role in decision-making, or else, there would be no purpose in having an elected government. The “elected government functioning through the council of ministers cannot be defeated by the act of the administrator, who is also functioning under the provisions of the Constitution, by way of interfering in the day-to-day affairs of the government”, it said.

On allegations about Bedi’s use of social media to summon officials, the judge said “government officials cannot use their personal media to address the grievances of the public”.

“The administrator has no exclusive authority to run the administration in derogation of the constitutional principles and the parliamentary laws governing the issue.”

Chief minister Narayanasamy said the high court had pointed out “unequivocally” that Bedi did not have independent powers and must work in tandem with the elected government in administrative and service matters and financial aspects of governance.

Bedi said the model code of conduct in the context of the ongoing parliamentary polls was still in force and “files which require (the) Lt Governor’s approval such as service matters, promotions, appointments, disciplinary matters and financial sanctions for grant in aid are being received and being examined”.

“They are being cleared on merits of each case,” she added.