|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on March 3 Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government's plea on the contentious issue of who should control administrative services in Delhi.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before the apex court. The plea arises out of a 2019 split verdict. A bench of Chief Justice, Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli agreed to list the matter for hearing on March 3. On February 14, 2019, a two-judge Bench of the top court had delivered a split verdict on the question of powers of the GNCTD and Union government over administrative services in Delhi and referred the matter to a three-judge Bench. While Justice Ashok Bhushan had ruled the Delhi government has no power at all over administrative services, Justice AK Sikri had said the transfer or posting of officers in top echelons of the bureaucracy (joint director and above) can only be done by the Central government and the view of the lieutenant governor would prevail in case of a difference of opinion for matters relating to other bureaucrats. The two-judge Bench which was hearing pleas on six matters pertaining to a long-running conflict between the Centre and the Delhi government had given a unanimous order on the remaining five issues except for the control over services. Governance of the national capital has witnessed a power struggle between the Centre and the Delhi government since the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) came to power in 2014. The Delhi government has been at loggerheads with the present Lieutenant Governor and his predecessor. Prior to February 2019 judgement, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court had on July 4, 2018, laid down the broad parameters for governance of the national capital. In the landmark verdict, it had unanimously held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a state but clipped the powers of the LG saying he has no "independent decision-making power" and has to act on the aid and advice of the elected government. It had restricted the jurisdiction of the LG to matters pertaining to land, police and public order and on all other matters, it held that the LG would have to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. (ANI)
|
