Centre seeks review of Supreme Court ruling on Delhi services row | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: Hours before issuance of the ordinance on Friday to tilt in its favour the services tug-of-war with the Delhi government, the Centre had moved the Supreme Court seeking review of its May 11 judgment that had ruled that though Delhi is a unique Union Territory, it had both legislative and executive power over transfer and posting of bureaucrats.
After keeping out of reach of the Arvind Kejriwal government the fruits of controlling the services handed down by the May 11 ruling by a Chief Justice of India-led five-judge bench, the Centre in its review petition said the “flawed judgment” was in the teeth of a nine-judge bench verdict of the SC in 1997 that ruled that Delhi, despite having an assembly, remained a UT, and argued the Centre would retain overarching control over many subjects, including services.

‘Delhi being elevated to status of full state’
Expecting the Delhi government to challenge the validity of the ordinance, the Centre is also filing a caveat so as to ensure the highest constitutional court does not pass an ex parte order that could immobilise the purpose of issuance of the ordinance. An ordinance has a life of six months and requires ratification by Parliament within that lifespan.
The Centre said, the judgment has upset the basic tenets of the constitutional idea of federalism by equating the NCT of Delhi to a state and giving it legislative and executive authority similar to that of a full-fledged state even after admitting that NCTD is a UT, the sole source of legislative power over which is that of Parliament. The SC had ruled that except for three entries in state list – public order, police and land, the Delhi government had legislative and executive power over all other subjects, including services.

The Centre also faulted the SC judgment for not taking note of its repeated plea for reference of the ‘services’ controversy to a larger bench in view of the 9-J bench verdict in NDMC vs State of Punjab. The Centre said the judgment did not consider its application for reference to a larger Bench, which by itself is a good ground for entertaining the review plea. It requested the SC to hear the case in open court.
Since Justice Shah retired on May 15, the CJI, would have to constitute a new 5-J bench to first consider it in chamber without the presence of any lawyer. If it considers the review petition merits hearing, then it would place it in open court for hearing arguments afresh. The SC had ruled that if bureaucracy did not remain accountable to ministers, it would create chaos for the elected government of Delhi.

The Centre said the judgement on one hand ruled that by virtue of Article 239AA, Parliament undeniably enjoys legislative supremacy, yet on the other hand said that the council of ministers of GNCTD would enjoy executive supremacy. This created an anomalous situation as Delhi, despite being a UT and not a full-fledged state, is now being elevated to the status of a full state.
The judgement, contrary to the intention of Parliament under Article 239AA, also extinguished the role of LG as ‘administrator’ of the NCTD. “If the Executive Authority for the GNCTD is co-extensive to the legislative authority of the Legislative Assembly for the NCT of Delhi; the same must also be true for the Executive Authority of the Union Government; as the SC has held that List II is also a Concurrent List for the NCT of Delhi,” the Centre said. “The impugned judgement has the effect of destroying the basic structure of the Constitution, wherein with the effect of conjoint reading of Article 73, 239AA and 246 the Union has overriding legislative as well as executive powers in respect of a Union Territory which is not a ‘State’.