New Delhi (Agency): On July 20, the Supreme Court of India declared that a constitution bench, composed of five judges, will now review the Delhi government’s disagreement with the Centre’s May 19 ordinance. The legislation, issued by the central government, removed the city government’s control over services, sparking new conflicts between the two ruling entities.
Despite the Delhi government’s passionate plea that this move was unnecessary and could “paralyse the whole system”, the top court insisted on the matter’s significance. The larger bench will begin its review after hearing pleas related to the removal of Article 370, a provision granting special status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The justices expressed concern over the ordinance’s implications for the Delhi government. They highlighted that it effectively removed control over services from the city administration’s purview, something not specified in the constitution’s exclusion of three entries from the control of the Delhi government: police, law and order, and land.
Harish Salve, a top lawyer representing the Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena, argued that in the case of a union territory like Delhi, the state list becomes a concurrent list, and thus Parliament has the right to pass laws. He also defended the termination of services of 437 independent consultants hired by the Delhi government, describing their appointments as “rank illegal”.
However, Abhishek Singhvi, another senior advocate speaking on behalf of the Delhi government, stressed that this matter didn’t need the constitution bench’s consideration. He argued that the ordinance violated Article 239AA, a section of the constitution dealing with special provisions for Delhi, as it reduced the power of the elected government. He warned that referring the case to a constitution bench would paralyse the whole system, requesting a prompt hearing of the Delhi government’s petition.
The Supreme Court had previously hinted at the possibility of referring this dispute to a constitution bench. Now, it seems the hearing will determine whether the Centre’s ordinance, which removes services from the Delhi government’s control, is constitutional.
The ordinance had caused quite a stir when it was issued on May 19. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the governing party in Delhi, denounced it as a “deception” that directly contradicted a recent Supreme Court ruling on control of services. In spite of this, the ordinance seeks to establish a National Capital Civil Service Authority for the transfer and disciplinary proceedings against Group-A officers from several territories.
The Supreme Court’s move to refer this issue to a constitution bench aims to resolve the continuing dispute between the Centre and the Delhi government. This conflict has been ongoing since 2015, when a home ministry notification asserted control over services. The Supreme Court had previously stated that an elected government must have control over bureaucrats; otherwise, the principle of collective responsibility would be negatively impacted.
