It is exactly six months since a Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, has reserved for judgment the critical power spat between the Centre and the democratically elected Arvind Kejriwal government on who wields the power of administration and governance of the national capital.
The five-judge Bench had reserved orders after extensive hearing for over a month on December 6, 2017. There is a week more left before the court closes for summer vacation. The same Constitution Bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme.
Another critical issue on which judgment is pending is whether parliamentary committee reports can be used as evidence in courts. This has been reserved for over six months.
Though there is no deadline for pronouncing judgments after they are reserved, convention shows important judgments, especially those on constitutional questions of privacy and instant triple talaq, are delivered within six months.
Recently, Justice Jasti Chelameswar said in a public forum that delay in pronouncement of judgment defeated the very purpose of administration of justice.
The Supreme Court has been in the eye of a controversy shortly after the Delhi power tussle verdict was reserved. On January 12, four of its senior-most judges held an unprecedented joint press conference, in which they complained about the allocation of cases of “national importance” to preferred Benches. The Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government had challenged the Delhi High Court’s judgment declaring the Lieutenant-Governor the sole administrator of Delhi. The Delhi government mounted the challenge shortly after the judgment was pronounced in August 2016.
The focus of the Constitution Bench was on a proviso to Article 239AA (4), which mandates that in case of a “difference of opinion” between the LG and the Council of Ministers, the former has to refer the issue to the President. While that decision is pending with the President, the LG, if the matter is urgent, can use his discretion to take immediate action.
The judgment was reserved with the Chief Justice Misra, at one point, making an oral observation that the Constitution had meant that the “difference of opinion” between the LG and the Delhi government should be “authentic” and not meant to stultify governance.
