The Delhi government stated that the Centre and LG will support it by citing the ordinance if it were to independently contest the LG order dismissing 400 specialists before any court.
The Supreme Court said it will take up on Monday next the request for stay of the ordinance NEW DELHI: On a plea filed by the Delhi government questioning the legality of an ordinance giving the Centre control over the state bureaucracy, the Supreme Court on Monday served notice to the Union government. The Delhi government pointed out that the executive order was used to fire 400 "specialists" in the city, thus the bench agreed to look into the matter on Monday despite declining the city government's motion to halt the executive order.
The Delhi government's supplementary request to add lieutenant governor Vinai Kumar Saxena as a respondent was also granted by the bench of Chief judge of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and judge PS Narasimha. The LG was given notice as a result.
"Either this court should consider staying the ordinance or this order of the LG firing independent consultants of the Delhi government has to be stayed," said senior attorney Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the Delhi government.
The court requested responses to the request for a stay of the ordinance from solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the Center, and senior advocate Sanjay Jain, who represented the LG.
The temporary remedy was disputed by both the Centre and LG in a separate case involving the deportation of 400 people. "The wife of a member of the legislative assembly (MLA) is one of those who have been dismissed. It is now customary to appeal to the Supreme Court in every case. None of the fired individuals have appeared before the court, according to Mehta.
"The impacted persons can go to the high court," Sanjay Jain continued. How may the dismissal of 400 party employees be questioned using this Court's Article 32 power?
Singhvi stated that he will move the motion against the LG's judgment, which was made on July 3—many days after the petition contesting the ordinance was submitted to the highest court on June 30.
"We are looking for a suitable stay. These individuals had previously worked for reputable organizations. By LG order, their wages have now been terminated. Since I am their employer, I have come to this court," said Singhvi.
The Delhi government stated that the Centre and LG will support it by citing the ordinance if it were to independently dispute the LG ruling before any Court. Tushar Mehta made the argument that an ordinance is being challenged under the guise of an order firing 400 party members. In response, Singhvi stated, "Let them make a statement that the removal is unrelated to the ordinance. I'll rescind my application.
"You look at their (the Delhi government's) prayer for temporary relief," the court instructed Mehta. We'll discuss it on the following Monday. He is pleading for the ordinance to be suspended. We can't stop him from moving an application if he wants to.
Singhvi provided a list of numerous cases in which the Supreme Court used its authority to stop an ordinance. "If an ordinance seeks to nullify the powers of the Constitution, this court has always granted stay," Singhvi said, pointing out that the ordinance made changes to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act in an effort to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling on May 11 that snubbed the Centre for bringing a notification in 2015 that removed Delhi government's control over services.
According to Singhvi, "The May 11 judgment talks about federalism, decentralization, democratic governance, and the triple chain of command necessary for any democratically elected government to justify its control over the transfer and posting of bureaucrats."
The purpose of the law was to reinforce the LG's position as the final arbiter of questions involving the posting and transfer of bureaucrats.
The National Capital Civil Service Authority (NCCSA), comprised of the chief minister as ex-officio chairperson and the chief secretary and home secretary as its other two members, was established by the ordinance by adding a completely new chapter, Part IVA, to the GNCTD Act. This group would advise the LG to transfer, post, and discipline any civil workers working under the GNCTD.
"Can you imagine a meeting where the chief minister sits with bureaucrats who can outvote him and they will refer the matter to the LG," Singhvi asked, calling the new body "illegal".The Constitution's Article 239AA could just as well not exist.
According to the May 11 verdict, just three items on the State List of the Constitution—land, public order, and police—are outside the scope of the Delhi Assembly under Article 239AA, which establishes a legislative body for Delhi.The court ruled that the Delhi government will have legislative and executive authority over all other entries.According to the top court, collective accountability is a key element of parliamentary democracy since a democratically elected government is accountable for the decisions and policies that must be carried out through the bureaucracy.
The Delhi government filed a petition alleging that the ordinance shows disrespect for the elected government by giving the Union control over civil personnel. The petition was written by attorneys Shadan Farasat and Hrishika Jain. The ordinance "in effect and design allows the Union to take over the governance of Delhi," it continued, by giving civil officials broad discretionary powers to override the government of national capital territory of Delhi (GNCTD).
The chief minister is reduced to being a minority voice even in the body tasked with providing nonbinding recommendations, despite the fact that the law pretends to show some democratic involvement by making incidental allusions to him.
The petition even questioned the timing of the law, which was announced on May 19, the last business day before the Supreme Court's summer break, contending that the Center had abused its authority to enact ordinances.
In addition to the current proceedings, the bench presided over by CJI is also hearing a separate petition filed by the Delhi government in which Section 45D of the ordinance is contested, and the Centre's decision to appoint a former judge from the Allahabad High Court as the chairperson of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) without consulting the Delhi government is questioned. The Delhi administration had agreed to postpone the swearing-in event until Tuesday, when it is anticipated that the issue will be discussed.
Comments