The Chief Justice Chandrachud sought the names as his initial suggestion of senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Harish Salve to talk to each other and decide on the name was received with reservations given the prevailing complexities.
SC quashes proceedings against Karnataka Dy CM Shivakumar in PMLA case
The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the Centre to propose a panel of names, out of which the Delhi Government may choose one to be the Chief Secretary of the national capital.
Asking the Central government to give a panel of names for the appointment of the Chief Secretary, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud heading a bench also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said that leaving it to Centre to propose the shortlisted names for the post of Chief Secretary would take care of their (centre) concerns.
Advertisement
The Chief Justice Chandrachud sought the names as his initial suggestion of senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Harish Salve to talk to each other and decide on the name was received with reservations given the prevailing complexities.
Advertisement
The bench asked why Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena and the Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal cannot meet and amicably discuss names for the post.
“Give us a workable solution. The government should work without the need to go to court. Give us a way out,” the CJI said.
The observation from the Chief Justice Chandrachud came in the course of the hearing of the Kejriwal government’s plea seeking direction to the Centre to either appoint a successor of incumbent Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar or extend his tenure. Naresh Kumar, will demit office on November 30.
The Aam Aadmi Party government is resisting any move by the Centre to unilaterally appoint a new Chief Secretary without consulting it.
Appearing for the Delhi government, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that in the past it was always “the Delhi government that appointed the Chief Secretary. Now there is a generic Ordinance under which I am objecting to the unilateral decision of the LG.”
Singhvi was referring to the Delhi Services Bill brought by the Centre which gave the Central government control over posting of senior bureaucrats.
Referring to the Delhi Services Bill, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that the Union Home Ministry made these appointments “even prior to the impugned amendment.”
However, Singhvi said that the Ministry would only make appointments based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
At this point, the Chief Justice Chandrachud said: “Why doesn’t LG and Centre propose a panel of names? Ultimate choice will be from a panel made by you. You suggest a panel. Then they (the Delhi government) will pick up one name.”
As the bench posted the matter for November 28, Solicitor General Mehta said that he will come back with instruction.
Singhvi said that the proposed names may be given to the court master by 10.25 am and by the time court assembles, Delhi government will make its choice.
As a caution, it was suggested that the names may not reach social media, in case Delhi government decides not pick any of the proposed names.
The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, notified in August, gives the Centre control over bureaucracy in Delhi and an authority was created under it for the transfer and posting of Group-A officers.
The plea alleged the 2023 Amendment Act is in violation of the 2023 Constitution bench judgment which renders the Delhi government a mere observer in the appointment of the most crucial member of the permanent executive, the Chief Secretary.
Advertisement
