The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the dispute between Delhi and the Central government on the contentious issue of who should control administrative services in Delhi over the transfers and postings of officers in the national capital.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reserved its verdict after hearing arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Centre and Delhi government respectively. At the outset of the hearing, Solicitor General told the Bench that the Central government is seeking a reference of the matter to a larger bench.

The bench also comprising Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha expressed surprise at the plea made by the Central government to refer the matter to a larger bench at the fag end of the hearing.

Mehta said, “We may not be remembered as handing over a national capital to complete anarchy.”

He sought permission to file an additional note for reference of the matter to a larger bench saying, “Please permit me to file a two-page note… My note will also contain a prayer for reference (of the case to a larger bench).”

The CJI told Mehta that it would have looked at the matter differently if there was an argument of reference to a larger bench earlier.

“There was no argument made by you (the Centre). Such an argument had to be made at the outset,” the bench told the senior law officer.

“We are in rejoinder (hearing rejoinder submissions). Singhvi (Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the Delhi government) would have finished yesterday. How can you argue reference now,” the bench asked Solicitor General.

Saying that referring the matter to a larger bench is needed, Mehta contended that the contours of federalism between the Centre and the Union Territory needed a “re-look”.

Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, opposed the submissions of the Solicitor General.

The bench, however, allowed the Centre to give its note on the point of reference.

After hearing arguments from Singhvi, the bench reserved its judgement in the case.

The application for referring the matter to a larger bench was sought in a matter of 2018 when the Constitution bench went against a 1997 Supreme Court ruling of a nine-judge bench which held Delhi is a Union Territory and not a State despite having a legislative assembly.

The top court has to decide the legal issue concerning the scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and Delhi government over control of services in the national capital.

The case was posted before a Constitution bench after a three-judge bench had in May 2021 decided to send it to a larger bench on a request by the Central government.

On February 14, 2019, a two-judge bench of the top court delivered a split verdict on the question of powers of the GNCTD and Union government over services and referred the matter to a three-judge Bench.

While Justice Ashok Bhushan had ruled the Delhi government has no power at all over administrative services. Justice AK Sikri, however, had said the transfer or posting of officers in top echelons of the bureaucracy (joint director and above) can only be done by the Central government and the view of the lieutenant governor would prevail in case of a difference of opinion for matters relating to other bureaucrats.

The two-judge bench which was hearing pleas on six matters pertaining to a long-running conflict between the Centre and the Delhi government had given a unanimous order on the remaining five issues except for the control over services.

Governance of the national capital has witnessed a power struggle between the Centre and the Delhi government since the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) came to power in 2014.

Prior to February 2019 judgement, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court had on July 4, 2018, laid down the broad parameters for governance of the national capital. In the landmark verdict, it had unanimously held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a state but clipped the powers of the LG saying he has no “independent decision-making power” and has to act on the aid and advice of the elected government.

It had restricted the jurisdiction of the LG to matters pertaining to land, police and public order and on all other matters, it held that the LG would have to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.