AAP, L-G spar over control of service

Delhi's LG Anil Baijal (L) and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal (R) (Photo: IANS/file)


Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government and Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal continued to train guns against each other over the control of services following the Supreme Court verdict on administrative powers in the national capital.

Kejriwal on Monday, in a reply to a letter from Baijal on power tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre, asked him how he could be “selective” in accepting the Supreme Court judgment.

The L-G retaliated by accusing Kejriwal of “selectively” quoting his letter. Baijal pointed out that the final decision regarding services was pending before the regular bench.

In his letter, Kejriwal urged Baijal to implement the apex court’s order and asserted that the Ministry of Home Affairs does not have powers to “interpret the order”.

“I have received your letter…I am glad that you kindly agreed with Para 277 (xxi) of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which says that concurrence of L-G is not required. However, you refuse to implement Para 277 (xiv), (xv) and (xvi) of the same judgement, which says that executive powers of central government are limited to 3 subjects only. You have relied upon the last para 278 of the judgement, which says ‘that matters be placed before the appropriate regular bench’,” Kejriwal wrote to L-G.

Advising Baijal to approach the apex court immediately for clarification, in case of any confusion, Kejriwal asked, “… how can you be selective in accepting the judgment? Either you should take a position that all the matters now would be placed before regular bench and therefore, you would not implement any part of the order, or you should accept the whole order and implement it. How can you say that you will accept this para of the order but not accept that para of the same order.

“I would urge you to kindly implement the orders of the SC in letter and spirit. MHA does not have the power to interpret SC order. If you have any confusion, kindly approach SC immediately for clarification but kindly don’t violate the SC order,” Kejriwal said.

On 7 July, the Delhi CM had said that though the Supreme Court’s 4 July order made it clear that his government had the power to transfer or post bureaucrats, both the L-G and the MHA interpreted the SC’s order in a “strange way”.

On 4 July, after the Supreme Court’s ruling that the L-G has no independent decision making power and is bound by the aid and the advice of the elected government, the power tussle over the administration and governance of Delhi has intensified between the Kejriwal government and the L-G.

Hours after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment last week, the Delhi government introduced a new system for transfer and postings of bureaucrats, making the Chief Minister the approving authority. However, the Services Department refused to comply, saying the Supreme Court did not abolish the notification issued in 2016 which made the MHA the authority for transfers and postings.

After this incident, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had written a letter to Baijal saying that it would be a contempt of court if the verdict was not followed.

Meanwhile, the L-G said that the CM had “selectively” quoted from his letter. “Lt Governor has written to Chief Minister in reference to his letter. LG has observed that Chief Minister has erroneously mentioned about selective implementation of the judgment of Supreme Court,” a statement issued from the LG office said. “L-G has noted that in fact, Chief Minister has quoted selectively from his letter dated 6 July 2018,” it added.

The L-G said while the entire judgment and its implications were being studied, “it may kindly be noted that in the concluding paras, Court while answering the reference has directed to place the matters before the appropriate regular Bench. Therefore, further clarity will be achieved when the appeals pending before the Ld. Regular Bench are finally disposed off.”

The L-G mentioned that as appeals are still pending before the Ld. Regular Bench, “it would be premature to draw any conclusions in this regard.”