New Delhi (Agency): A five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court has announced that it will examine the boundaries of the Parliament’s power to create laws for Delhi. This follows an ordinance by the Centre that has sparked a new power struggle between the central government and the city’s administration.
Only eight days after the bench declared that the Delhi government would have control over services, the Centre promulgated an ordinance on the matter. This action, based on Article 239-AA, a unique provision of the Constitution concerning the national capital, stirred the waters of political governance.
To address this emerging tension, the Supreme Court is referring the case to a constitutional bench. This was done to resolve two legal questions surrounding the ordinance. As penned by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, the court intends to understand the extent of Parliament’s power under Article 239-AA(7) and if it can bypass the existing constitutional governance principles of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD).
The Court also acknowledged the urgent need to conclude the drawn-out legal feud between the Centre and the Delhi government. For that purpose, they have directed that the case documents be presented to the Chief Justice to establish the constitutional bench.
The crux of the issue lies with the ordinance’s Section 3A, which disallows the Delhi government from having executive power over services. The contentious aspect of the services in Entry 41 was connected to the validity of Section 3A.
In addition, the ordinance has amended the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, stating that the Delhi assembly cannot legislate on control of services in the national capital.
A review of Article 239-AA(7)(a), which was cited for the ordinance, revealed that while the law should not alter the current constitutional structure for NCTD, there’s an apparent conflict. This conflict concerning law-making power in relation to Delhi’s governance structure needs resolution.
During the proceedings, the Court rejected the Delhi government’s objection to referring the case to a constitution bench. It was argued that this would “paralyse the whole system” during its pendency.
The Centre defended its ordinance, pointing out that, besides three constitutional exclusions (police, law and order, and land), it only removed the control over services from the Delhi government’s powers.
The Delhi government, on the other hand, called the ordinance a “deception” of the Supreme Court’s verdict on control of services. The ordinance’s aim is to establish a National Capital Civil Service Authority, which will deal with the transfer and disciplinary actions against Group-A officers. The Chief Minister is among the three members of the Authority, with the other two being bureaucrats.
Previously, a unanimous verdict by a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud attempted to resolve the eight-year-old dispute between the Centre and the Delhi government. They concluded that Delhi’s administration differs from other union territories, holding a unique status under the Constitution.
Overall, this examination by the Supreme Court will be a pivotal step in determining the true extent of Parliament’s powers and the fate of Delhi’s governance.
