Centre-Delhi legal battles are unfortunate, says SC

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the AAP government, complained that the bill for increasing the retirement age to 70 years from the current 65 years has been pending before the lieutenant governor for more than seven months.

The Supreme Court on Monday called the relentless legal battles between the Centre and the Delhi government “unfortunate”, even as it refused to entertain the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government’s petition against a delay by lieutenant governor VK Saxena in ratifying a law to raise the retirement age of the chairman and members of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC).

Centre-Delhi legal battles are unfortunate, says SC

“The thing that is unfortunate is that the battle between the Delhi government and the Centre continues. But this does not warrant an interference of proceedings before the high court by this court,” a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka said in its order, asking the Delhi government to approach the Delhi high court.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the AAP government, complained that the bill for increasing the retirement age to 70 years from the current 65 years has been pending before the lieutenant governor for more than seven months.

In March, the Delhi government passed the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 2022, fixing the term of the members and chairman of DERC to five years or age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. Under the existing regime, the chairman and members can hold office for a term of five years or till they reach the age of 65. Apart from a chairperson, the DERC can have two members.

“But why a petition under Article 32 (public interest litigation)? Why can’t you go to the high court and argue it there? This battle between you two (Delhi government and Centre) continues for every small thing. So, will everything come to this court?” the apex court bench asked Singhvi.

To this, the counsel replied that the plea has an element of public interest. “We have broadly emulated the law of Andhra Pradesh. There it was permission was given to Andhra Pradesh in 14 days, but here it is pending for seven months. It is delay fundamentally due to political reasons,” argued Singhvi.

The court, however, remained unmoved, asking the senior lawyer to go to the high court. At this point, Singhvi requested the bench to expedite the hearing before the high court, but to no avail. “Sorry, we don’t want to set a wrong precedent. You go to the high court,” the judges said.

As Singhvi opted to withdraw the petition with the liberty to move the high court, the bench remarked: “Mr Singhvi, nobody makes appointments in time. These are all continuing battles. They just keep lawyers and judges busy.”

Over the past few years, a spate of legal wrangles between the Centre and the Delhi government have landed at the top court. From outlining the legislative and executive powers of the two governments to delay in polls for the unified Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the apex court has become the battlefield for the AAP government and the Centre to settle contentious issues.

Keeping on with the precedents, an intense tug of war between the two over the control of bureaucrats in the national capital is also set to ensue before a constitution bench from January 10.