Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: October 19, 2022 at 20:46 IST
The Supreme Court postponed the hearing of the dispute between the Delhi Government and the Union Government over control of administrative services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi on Wednesday at the request of the Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta.
Mentioning the matter before a Bench comprised of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, Mr. Mehta stated that the Constitution Bench, led by Justice Chandrachud, was scheduled to begin hearings on November 9, 2021.
However, indicating that he would be travelling outside of India for official business from November 7th to November 13th, 2022, he asked accommodation from the Bench.
Given the nature of the Solicitor General’s plea, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, acting on behalf of the Delhi Government, did not object.
As both sides agreed to the delay proposal, Justice Chandrachud stated that he would discuss it with his colleagues on the Constitution Bench.
He requested that the Counsels set a reasonable date for the matter to be heard. Mr. Mehta proposed November 24, 2022. Because Mr. Singhvi did not object, the Bench agreed to postpone the hearing until November 24, 2022.
On September 27, 2022, a 5-judge Bench stated that the hearing would begin on a daily basis on November 9, 2022.
Prior to that, the Constitution Bench had scheduled a hearing for the 27th of September, 2022, and suggested that it would begin provisionally on the 11th of October, 2022.
On 06.05.2022, a 3-Judge Bench led by the CJI, NV Ramana, referred to the Constitution Bench the limited questions surrounding power over administrative services in the National Capital Territory in the matter pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government.
The key issue, according to the three-judge bench, is the interpretation of the wording ‘any such matter is applicable to UTs’ and subject to the provisions of this constitution’ in Article 239AA(3) (a).
“While interpreting 239AA, the Constitution Bench did not clearly interpret the implications of the wording of the same with reference to entry 41 of the state list. We believe it is proper to refer the above-mentioned restricted question to the Constitution bench.”
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in February 2019 on the question of the GNCTD and Union Government’s powers over services and referred the matter to a three-judge bench, which has now referred a limited question of law to the Constitution Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
In the midst of disagreements between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued broad guidelines for national capital governance in July 2018.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court referred the case to the Constitution Bench in a ruling dated February 15, 2017.
The Union of India had argued before the three-judge bench led by CJI Ramana that a reference to a Constitution Bench is required for a comprehensive interpretation of Article 239AA, which is important to the assessment of the issues involved.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing the Delhi Government, rejected the Union’s request for a referral.
He had argued that the Union’s request for referral of issues previously dealt with by the Constitution Bench amounted to reconsideration or review of the 2018 Constitution Bench verdict.