The Supreme Court on Thursday is set to pronounce its verdict on the vexatious Centre-Delhi government row over control of services in the national capital on Thursday. The landmark decision in the Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India case could have a far-reaching impact on the functioning of the Delhi administration and the appointment of the represented electives and appointed officials.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud is likely to deliver the judgment. According to the cause list updated on the Supreme Court's website, only one verdict in the matter is likely to be pronounced by the CJI.
The bench, also comprising Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha, had reserved its order on January 18 after hearing the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate A M Singhvi for the Centre and the Delhi government respectively for almost four-and-a-half days.
The Constitution bench was set up to hear the legal issue concerning the scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and the National Capital Territory (NCT) government over control of services in Delhi.
What is the issue?
The issue relates to the tussle between the powers of the Government of NCT and the Centre regarding the administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants, from the ranks of IAS, IPS among others, posted to Delhi by the Union Government. The issue also concerns the legislative and executive powers of the NCT government in relation to 'services' under Schedule VII, List II, and Entry 41 of the Constitution of India.
How has the case progressed this far?
The case dates back to 2018 when a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan interpreted Article 239AA of the Constitution related to the special provisions of the NCT and debated the interplay of the powers between the Government of NCT and the LG. Back then, the Bench ruled in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) which is currently in power in Delhi stating that the LG could not work independently of the NCT government and the Council of Ministers of the Delhi government.
Sub Article 3 (a) of 239AA, which deals with the status and power of Delhi in the Constitution, deals with the law-making power of the Delhi Legislative Assembly on the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List.
Based on the judgment given by the Bench, appeals regarding individual services, such as services of the administrations, were placed before a division bench for adjudication.
The division bench on April 14, 2019, gave a split verdict on the various aspects of the services following the differing views of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan on the issue of 'services' under Schedule VII, List II, Entry 41 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Bhushan had ruled that the Delhi government had no power at all over administrative services, while Justice Sikri had made a distinction. He had said the transfer or posting of officers in the top echelons of the bureaucracy (joint director and above) can only be done by the Centre and the lieutenant governor's view will prevail in case of a difference of opinion on matters related to other bureaucrats.
The bench then recommended the case to the CJI that a three-judge bench be set up to finally decide the issue of control of services in the national capital. The then CJI NV Ramana formed the three-judge bench to decide upon the dispute but eventually referred to the Constitution Bench on the Centre's request on May 6, 2022.
Following this, the five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha started hearing the dispute.
The apex court had said the limited issue of control over services was not dealt with by the Constitu bench which elaborately dealt with all legal questions.
"The limited issue that has been referred to this Bench relates to the scope of legislative and executi powers of the Centre and NCT Delhi with respect to the term services The Constitution bench of th court, while interpreting Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, did not find any occasion to specific interpret the impact of the wordings of the same with respect to Entry 41 in the State List.
"We, therefore, deem it appropriate to refer to the above-limited question, for an authoritative Pronouncement by a Constitution Bench..., it had said
In October 2022, the Supreme Court postponed the hearing of its five-judge Constitution bench. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli shifted the hearing on the request of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, and said that he will be unavailable on November 9 due to an official trip abroad.
The bench then posted the matter for further hearing on November 24.
(with PTI inputs)
