Bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud to hear Centre, Delhi tussle over services

In May, the three-judge bench headed by the CJI clarified that the Constitution bench shall adjudicate the limited issue relating to services in Delhi and that no other substantial issue on interpretation of Article 239AA shall be adjudicated afresh.

Three months after the power tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government on the control of bureaucrats in the national capital was referred to a Constitution bench, Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said on Monday that justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud will head the new bench that will hear the matter.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said on Monday that justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud will head the new bench that will hear the matter. (HT Archive)

The case was mentioned before the CJI by advocate Shadan Farasat on behalf of the Delhi government, pointing out that there has been no hearing since May 6, when the issue was referred by a three-judge bench to a constitution bench.

To this, CJI Ramana told Farasat that the new five-judge bench has been constituted by him through an administrative order and that justice Chandrachud was going to lead that bench. The identities of the other judges on this bench isn’t known.

In May, the three-judge bench headed by the CJI clarified that the Constitution bench shall adjudicate the limited issue relating to services in Delhi and that no other substantial issue on interpretation of Article 239AA shall be adjudicated afresh. Article 239AA delineates the legislative and executive powers of the Delhi government while clarifying that three subjects land, police and public order -- shall remain under the exclusive domain of the Centre in the capital.

Before the three-judge bench, the Centre pressed for a fresh adjudication by a constitution bench to set the boundaries of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Delhi in so far as it relates to transfer and appointment of bureaucrats in the capital.

According to the Centre’s submissions, there can be more than the three subjects specifically mentioned under sub-section 3 of Article 239AA on which the Delhi government is restricted from passing a law, and that this aspect should be clarified by another five-judge bench.

The Delhi government opposed the Centre’s views, seeking a quick decision on whether or not it has the executive power to transfer and appoint bureaucrats in the capital.

A constitution bench in July 2018 held that the executive power of the Union government in respect of NCT of Delhi is confined to land, police and public order under subsection 3 of Article 239AA.

However, solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Union government, made the fine point during the proceedings in April that the 2018 judgment has not specifically held that the Delhi government is empowered to make laws on all subjects other than land, police, and public order.

At that point, advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the AAP government, this submission. The 2018 verdict by the constitution bench is unequivocal in demarcating the powers of the Delhi government and that the submissions by the Centre are aimed at eroding the federal structure, he argued.

Accepting the Centre’s submissions would render the Delhi legislative assembly meaningless, Singhvi said.