The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a five-judge constitutional bench a dispute between the Center and the Delhi government over the regulation of services in the national capital for the issuance of an official declaration on the matter.The bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Judges Surya Kant and HimaKohli, however, said that all other issues, except the issue of resource management, were discussed in detail by the ‘2018 Constitutional bench and will not be considered further.
In terms of the provisions of the Constitution and Section 239AA (referring to the power of Delhi) of the Constitution and considering the judgment of the Constitutional bench (2018), it appears that all issues other than the one awaiting consideration before this bench have been extensively discussed. therefore, we do not see the need to reconsider the issues that have been resolved, said the CJI while reading the decision section.The limited matter referred to this bench is related to the extent of the legal and administrative powers of the Institute and the Delhi government in terms of services, the ruling said.
The Constitutional bench of this court while interpreting Section 239AA of the Constitution did not have the opportunity to interpret the dispute here … so we deem it necessary to refer the above query question to get the official declaration of the Constitutional bench, it said.The bench withdrew its order on April 28 at the Center’s motion that the dispute over service management be referred to a five-judge bench, a request that was strongly opposed by the AAP-led Delhi government.
In defiance of the order, the bench said in the case, it decided to build a five-judge panel to hear the case and the trial had to be completed before May 15 so that the holiday season could be used to rectify the decision.Singhvi said the court did not come to discuss the matter at all. How could this be, if there were three or five judges. It’s not why not, it’s why.The attorney general said the matter needed to be referred to the Constitutional bench for reasons including the fact that previous decisions of the five-judge bench did not provide guidance on deciding whether a union or government in Delhi would be able to deal with it. and a contradictory story.
There was a bench finding that there was no consideration of other aspects of the main Constitution bench and that is why the dispute needed to be referred, Mehta said.The legal officer referred to the observation made by Justice Ashok Bhushan (since his retirement) in a subsequent ruling on the division of power between the Center and the Delhi government and said the referendum was based on that translation only.The attorney general also said that the NCT Delhi administrative model would always require the Union government to play a key role, whether it was present at a legislative meeting or a ministerial meeting.
The central government also demanded a joint hearing of two separate Delhi government applications on resource management and challenged the legitimacy of the amended Constitution of the GNCTD Act, 2021 and the Transaction of Business Rules, which allegedly gave extra power to Lieutenant Governor respectively. , claiming to be related to prima facie.The Delhi government’s appeal comes from a separate decision dated February 14, 2019, in which a two-judge panel of judges AK Sikri and Bushan, both retired, has been recommended by the Indian Supreme Court as a three-judge bench. set out to ultimately determine the issue of resource management in the national capital based on its decision to split.
JUDGE
Justice Bhushan ruled that the Delhi government had no control over its administrative resources. Judge Sikri, however, did make a difference.He said the transfer or transfer of officers to senior bureaucracy (co-director and above) could only be made by the Central Government and the Lieutenant Governor’s view would be available in the event of differences of opinion on matters relating to other officials. .In a 2018 ruling, the five-judge Constitutional bench unanimously agreed that the Delhi Lieutenant Governor had been detained with the help and advice of the elected government, and both needed to work together in harmony.
READ ALSO : Asian games postponed during COVID surgery: China
