A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will on Thursday commence hearing a series of appeals filed by the Delhi government for laying down the law on whether the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) can unilaterally administer the Capital without being bound by the “aid and advice” of the elected government.
The appeals were referred to the Constitution Bench in February by a Division Bench of Justices A. K. Sikri and R. K. Agrawal.
The primary question that may arise for consideration of the Constitution Bench would be whether the appeals need to be further referred to an 11-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. This is because a nine-judge Bench of the apex court had in 1996 in the NDMC versus State of Punjab case, recognised Delhi as a Union Territory for taxation purposes.
‘Want more freedom’
However, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing the Delhi government, had submitted that the petitions did not seek full Statehood for Delhi, but was asking for more freedom for an elected government to administer and govern the National Capital.
The two-judge Bench said there are several questions of law that need to be interpreted and settled by a Constitution Bench. Justice Sikri’s Bench had heard the appeals, which were filed in August 2016, on a preliminary basis but refrained from framing questions for the Constitution Bench.
The batch of seven special leave petitions filed by the Delhi government has challenged the Delhi High Court’s August 4 judgment which upheld the L-G’s power not only over the police, land and public order but also in “services”.
The Supreme Court had, however, refused to stay the HC judgment.
The Delhi government has highlighted the primary question whether the dispute between AAP-Centre was a federal dispute coming under Article 131 of the Constitution and which only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide.
The High Court had dismissed the Delhi government’s claim that the AAP-Centre tussle was a 'classic' federal dispute.
The 194-page judgment had relegated the wrangle to the status of a mere political tug-of-war on 'services' matters over which the High Court has full jurisdiction to adjudicate under Article 226 of the Constitution.
It had observed that not every dispute between the Centre and a State government could be classified as a ‘federal dispute’.
