The Supreme Court in its judgment today referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench the matter pertaining to the tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government over the control of bureaucrats/services in the national capital.
A Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) N V Ramana passed the order today and referred the tussle over the control of bureaucrats/services in the national capital to a five-judge Constitution Bench for adjudication in the matter.
The three-judge bench, also comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli, besides led by the CJI Ramana, however, said all other issues, except the issue of control over services, had been elaborately dealt with by the previous Constitution bench in 2018 and they will not be revisited.
The Supreme Court today in its Judgement listed the matter for hearing before a 5-judge bench on Wednesday, May 11, for hearing the arguments from both Centre and Delhi government on who should control the services.
“Subject to the provisions of the Constitution and Article 239AA (which deals with Delhi’s power) of the Constitution and considering the Constitution bench judgment (of 2018), it appears that all the issues except the one pending consideration before this bench have been elaborately dealt with, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to revisit the issues that already stand settled,” the CJI said while reading out the operative portion of the verdict.
The limited issue that has been referred to this bench relates to the scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and the Delhi government with respect to the terms of services, the Supreme Court in its judgment today said.
The Constitution bench of this court while interpreting Article 239AA of the Constitution did not find any occasion to specifically interpret the dispute herein, we therefore deem it appropriate to refer the above-limited question for an authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench, the Supreme Court said in its verdict.
“We are listing it on Wednesday. Please, do not ask for any adjournment (on May 11)”, the CJI said.
The Bench of the Apex Court had reserved its order on April 28 on the Centre’s submission that the dispute over the control over services be referred to a five-judge bench, a plea which was strongly opposed by the AAP-led Delhi government.
Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior lawyer appearing for the Delhi government, had opposed the plea of the Centre for sending the matter to a larger Constitution Bench.
Dr Singhvi had in the Supreme Court said that once the Constitution bench had already decided the matter, there’s no point in asking again and again to ask to refer the matter to a larger Constitution Bench.
“This court isn’t here to refer every time slightest thing is pointed out. How does this matter if there’s 3 or 5 judges’ isn’t the question? It’s not about why not, its about why,” Dr Singhvi had told the Supreme Court.
Dr Singhvi had said that your lordships don’t have the luxury of time etc. Does Your lordships have time to have constitution bench on issues nuanced by earlier constitution bench? Hearing us and referring it as government is asking for it is no reason to refer.
The Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, senior lawyer appearing for the Central government, had earlier told the Supreme Court that the dispute involving powers of the Delhi government against the Centre, has to be referred to a larger bench and they felt that the constitution bench didn’t go into the entire issue.
“In my submission, it needs to be referred to a larger bench, the issue involving the powers between Delhi government and Centre,” the SG Mehta, had told the Supreme Court bench, headed by the CJI Ramana.
Mehta had said that the Constitution bench judgment was a concurring judgment but the 3 judges didn’t take into consideration the entire aspect in the case.
The Supreme Court today passed the verdict after completing its hearing on April 28, about the dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the control over administrative services in Delhi.
Delhi government has moved the Supreme Court last year, seeking quashing of four amended sections of the ‘Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act’ and 13 Rules of the ‘Transaction of Business of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Rules, 1993’.
The Delhi government, in its petition filed before the Supreme Court, had contended that the amended Act violates the “basic structure of the Constitution” and that the Centre, through the amendments, has given more power to the Lieutenant-Governor than the elected government of Delhi.