The Delhi government on Tuesday made a request to the Supreme Court to urgently hear and pronounce an authoritative judgment on the battle between the Centre and Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government for control over bureaucrats in the National Capital.
The court had referred the case to a Constitution Bench in May.
In an oral mentioning before Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, for the Delhi government, said the issue was "extremely urgent". The CJI agreed to consider the plea for early listing.
A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice Ramana, on May 6, had concluded that the tussle between the Union and Delhi governments over the limited question concerning ‘services’ or bureaucracy required an authoritative pronouncement by a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
This would be the second Constitution Bench the top court would be forming in the Delhi versus Centre battle.
Delhi L-G bound by aid and advice of AAP government
Four years ago, in 2018, a Constitution Bench had unanimously held that the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi was bound by the “aid and advice” of the popularly elected Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government and both had to work harmoniously with each other. It had noted that there was no room for anarchy or absolutism in a democracy.
However, reading the referral order on May 6, Chief Justice Ramana had pointed out that the 2018 judgment had not specifically dealt with the issue of ‘services’.
Arguing the reference, the Delhi government had compared its predicament without power over the ‘services’ like that of a king without a kingdom. The situation was such that a “democratic representative government” had to get the approval of the Lieutenant Governor to appoint a Health Secretary or a Commerce Secretary, it had argued.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, too had argued in favour of referring the issue to a Constitution Bench.
The Centre had contended that Delhi, the nation’s capital and a sprawling metropolis, should be under its control. Delhi could not be left to the “small mercies and smaller resources” of a State legislature, the Centre had reasoned.
