Multiple pleas kick off on L-G’s spat with Kejriwal

The Supreme Court and the High Court have scheduled hearings for Friday.

May 29, 2015 02:12 am | Updated November 16, 2021 05:04 pm IST - NEW DELHI:

While the Centre claimed supremacy to administer the National Capital Territory on Thursday before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court saw the Arvind Kejriwal government claim unfettered right to run Delhi as its popularly elected government.

Multiple arenas of litigation opened up in the highest courts with both the Centre and the Delhi government simultaneously approaching the Supreme Court and the High Court after days of impasse over who actually is constitutionally empowered to administer the National Capital Territory.

The immediate trigger for the identical litigation came in the form of a May 25 order by a single judge of the Delhi High Court calling a May 21 notification by the Ministry of Home Affairs “suspect” for giving the Lieutenant-Governor absolute powers over appointments, postings and transfers of senior officials as well as matters relating to the police and public order. The notification also denied the Delhi government’s Anti-Corruption Branch power to probe and prosecute Central government employees for offences of corruption.

The Supreme Court and the High Court have scheduled hearings for tomorrow.

Notification is bad in law, says Delhi government

On Friday, the Delhi government will argue in the High Court that the Union Home Ministry’s May 21 notification, giving the Lieutenant-Governor absolute powers over appointments, postings and transfers of senior officials and in matters relating to the police and public order, is “clearly bad in law.”

While the Centre will justify the notification in the Supreme Court, saying the single judge of the High Court, who on May 25 called the notification “suspect,” had no jurisdiction to pass remarks diminishing the L-G’s powers.

Most probably, the High Court may choose to abate its hearing and await the outcome in the Supreme Court, where the Delhi government has already filed a caveat.

In an urgent mentioning before a Bench of Justices A.K. Siri and U.U. Lalit, Additional Solicitor-General Maninder Singh said the single judge’s disparaging remarks, that too on a bail application of a Delhi Police constable, left the “delicate constitutional balance for governance of Delhi in a state of total uncertainty.” “Every day, the administration of the NCT Delhi is facing difficulty,” he submitted.

The same complaint was echoed by the Delhi government in the nearby High Court. But there, the Kejriwal government blamed the notification for leaving everyday administration in disarray.

The Delhi government complained in the High Court that the notification had made it “virtually impossible for a democratically elected government to carry out its day-to-day administrative functions and responsibilities”.

The Centre’s petition in the Supreme Court argues that the single judge failed to appreciate that the NCT of Delhi is a “centrally administered territory of the Union”. It said the observations were made on the notification against all norms of natural justice as the Centre was not given an opportunity to be heard first. Besides, the single judge went ahead to comment despite knowing that a Division Bench of the High Court was already considering the legality of the May 21 notification.

The petition said the legislative and executive powers of the Delhi government were restricted constitutionally. It said Article 239AA (3)(a) gives Parliament supremacy over the Delhi Assembly to make laws for the National Capital Territory, and in case of conflict, the law of Parliament prevails over that of the Assembly.

One of the questions the Centre wants the Supreme Court to authoritatively answer is whether the Delhi Assembly has unfettered powers under Article 239AA. If so, does such power to a State government “derogate” the power of Parliament under the Constitution to make laws with respect to any matter for a Union Territory under Article 246(4)?

On the other hand, the Kejriwal government argued in the High Court that the May 21 notification deprives the State of its executive authority. It said a democratic set-up did not allow two centres of power — the L-G and the CM.

It said the L-G could not be placed at a higher pedestal as the May 21 notification did. It said the L-G had to act as per the the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.