E-Paper
Supreme Court refuses to interfere in Centre's 6-month extension to Delhi chief secretary Naresh Kumar
Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the Centre's decision to grant a six-month extension to Delhi chief secretary Naresh Kumar.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the Centre's decision to grant a six-month extension to Delhi chief secretary Naresh Kumar.
The top court also held that the Centre has the power to appoint Delhi's chief secretary under the 2024 law on the administration of the national capital. This comes a day after the court on being informed by the Centre about the move had asked if there was no other officer eligible or competent enough to succeed Kumar.
“You want to make the appointment, make it. Don't you have any IAS officer who can be made chief secretary of Delhi? Are you so stuck on one IAS officer?” the bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud along with justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had said.
The appointment of the new chief secretary is the latest bone of contention between the Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government and lieutenant governor Vinai Kumar Saxena.
The top court was hearing a plea by the Delhi government against any move by the Centre to appoint, without any consultation with it, the new chief secretary or extend the tenure of the current top civil servant Naresh Kumar.
The Delhi government has questioned how the Centre could proceed with the appointment of the chief secretary without any consultation with it while the new law is under challenge.
On November 24, the Supreme Court bench had suggested the Centre propose names of five officials for the post of the chief secretary, from which the Delhi government could pick anyone.
Earlier this month, chief minister Arvind Kejriwal had written to the L-G seeking immediate removal of the incumbent chief secretary in an alleged corruption case involving land pocket acquisition for Dwarka expressway. While Kumar denied the charges, the LG refused to act on the CM’s letter saying no evidence of Kumar’s complicity was brought to fore.
