NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench the limited question pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Centre regarding the control over administrative services in the national capital.
The case will be adjudicated on the limited aspect of “services” in the Capital city.
The matter would be heard on May 11.
The top court said that all issues other than services have been dealt with by the constitutional bench and they do not want to revisit the issues settled by the previous five-judge bench.
“The limited issue that has been referred to this Bench, relates to the scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and NCT Delhi with respect to the term “services”. The Constitution Bench of this Court, while interpreting Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, did not find any occasion to specifically interpret the impact of the wordings of the same with respect to Entry 41 in the State List,” the top court order passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana reads.
“We, therefore, deem it appropriate to refer the above limited question, for an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution,” the top court order added.
Article 239AA provides the constitutional bulwark for the exercise of legislative powers by the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Delhi and the Parliament in respect of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
The order was reserved on April 28 on an application filed by the Central government seeking referral to a Constitution Bench for a holistic interpretation of Article 239AA.
During the course of arguments earlier, when the top court asked why not refer it to a larger bench, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the Delhi government had said that the question is not “why not it should be referred” but “why it should be referred” to a constitutional bench.
“Everybody can find fault in some order of a constitutional bench...A reference or a reconsideration arising from a constitutional bench is the rarest of rare instance,” he said.
The Central government had argued over control of Delhi owing to its status as a national capital and the face of the nation.
“It is one thing to administer Puducherry or Lakshadweep but it is a different thing to manage the national capital. Delhi is the face of the nation. The world views India through Delhi. All the capitals are managed like that,” Solicitor General argued for the Centre.
Mehta had referred to the Balakrishnan Committee report that had said that the national capital cannot have a situation where it is run by different political parties and such issues could cause ‘conflict with the national interest.’
In July 2018, A Constitution Bench of the top court delivered three separate concurring opinions on the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution in its final verdict. The matter was then placed before a two-judge bench of the top court to decide the remaining issues.
In the second round of the proceedings, the two-judge bench in February 2019 while giving a split verdict resolved all issues except for one, which was with regard to the legislative competence of the Delhi government in relation to the subject matter of ‘services’ as contained in the List II of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the matter was referred to a three-judge bench where the Central government through an application sought reference to a five-judge bench.