SC asks Centre: What's the purpose of having elected govt in Delhi?

The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 12) questioned the need for having an elected government in Delhi after the Centre asserted that the Union Territories were an extension of the Union which wanted to administer them.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, while continuing the hearing for a third day on the vexatious Centre-Delhi government row over control of services, was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, that Delhi, being the national capital, had a unique status and citizens of all states living there must have a sense of belongingness.

Referring to a judgement, the law officer said Delhi was a cosmopolitan, miniaturised India – it belonged to India.

During the day-long hearing, the bench, also comprising Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha, referred to the subjects on which the Delhi government was incapable of making laws, and asked about the legal and constitutional position with regard to control of services in the national capital.

Also read: Centre-Delhi govt fight over control of babus: What SC says

As a broad principle, Parliament had the power to legislate upon entries of State and the concurrent list (of the 7th schedule). The Delhi legislative assembly did not have the power to legislate upon lists 1,2,18,64, 65 (Public order, Police and Land, etc.) of state list, the bench said.

It said the Delhi legislative assembly had the power to legislate in respect of all entries in the State and the Concurrent list as far as they were applicable to the Union Territory.

The bench then said in respect of other entries of the State and Concurrent lists, the Delhi assembly had the right to legislate on subjects applicable to the UT.

Bench questions Delhi govt’s executive powers

“Does the legislative entry of services relate to Union Territory?” the bench asked, adding if Parliament had legislative control over certain areas, then what about the executive powers of the Delhi government?

The court wanted the solicitor general to explain how legislative control of services was never intended to be part of the legislative powers of Delhi.

“The Union Territories are an extension of the Union. The very purpose of creating a geographical area as a UT shows that the Union wants to administer the territory,” the solicitor general said.

“Then what is the purpose of having an elected government in Delhi at all? If the administration is by central government only, why bother with a government?” the bench observed orally.

The law officer said certain powers were co-terminus and the functional control over the officers would always remain with the locally-elected government. “Functional control will be that of the elected government and we are concerned with administrative control,” he said.

If an officer was not discharging his role as desired, then the Delhi government would have no power to shift him and get someone else, the bench said, adding “can you say that they would not have any jurisdiction on where he should be posted”.

The law officer referred to the status of Delhi as the national capital and gave illustrations to buttress his submissions as to why the Centre needed to control the services.

Also read: Repay Rs 163 crore spent on ads within 10 days: Delhi govt notice to AAP

“Let us examine the fundamental question, why that control is necessary. Suppose the central government posts an officer and, as per a policy of the Delhi government, he starts having non-cooperation with another state, then there would be a problem,” Mehta said.
“Moreover, whenever a request is made with regard to an officer, the LG takes the action,” he said, adding that the power rested with the central government.

He then gave the details of the types of services and said All India officers are appointed under the All India Act and they are appointed through the examinations conducted by the UPSC.

“There is no separate cadre for the Union Territories. As far as the Delhi administration is concerned, there are three layers – All India Services, DANICS and DANIPS, and DASS. For the first two tiers, the appointment is made by the UPSC,” said Mehta.

Referring to the constitutional scheme, he said there were Central and State services and UTs had no public service commissions.

The hearing will resume on January 17.

‘Collective responsibility, aid and advice the bedrock of democracy’

Earlier, the top court had termed collective responsibility, aid and advice as the bedrock of democracy and said it would have to find a balance and decide whether the control over services should be with the Centre or the Delhi government or a median had to be found.

The apex court had said on August 22 last year that a Constitution bench had been set up to hear the legal issue concerning the scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and the National Capital Territory government over control of services in Delhi.

On May 6, the top court referred the issue of control of services in Delhi to a five-judge Constitution bench.

The apex court had said that the limited issue of control over services was not dealt with by the Constitution bench which elaborately tackled all legal questions on the powers of the Centre and the Delhi government in 2018.

Also read: Delhi govt schools top India School Ranking, Kejriwal lauds education team

“The limited issue that has been referred to this Bench relates to the scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and NCT Delhi with respect to the term services. The Constitution bench of this court, while interpreting Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, did not find any occasion to specifically 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.

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.

Issue of control of services in Delhi to be resolved

The plea by the Delhi government arises out of a split verdict of February 14, 2019, in which a two-judge bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, both now retired, had recommended to the Chief Justice of India that a three-judge bench be set up to finally decide the issue of control of services in the national capital.

Justice Bhushan had ruled that the Delhi government had no power at all over administrative services, while Justice Sikri made a distinction. He said the transfer or posting of officers in top echelons of the bureaucracy (joint director and above) could only be done by the Central government and the view of the lieutenant governor would prevail in case of a difference of opinion on matters related to other bureaucrats.

In the 2018 judgement, a five-judge Constitution bench had unanimously held that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi was bound by the aid and advice of the elected government, and both needed to work harmoniously with each other.