Delhi Services Ordinance counters Delhi government's attempts to paralyze capital, harass vigilance officers: Home Ministry to Supreme Court

The Central government on Monday defended before the Supreme Court the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 (Delhi Services Ordinance) introduced by it by which control over civil servants serving in Delhi has been vested with the Central government..In an affidavit filed before the top court on Monday, the Union Home Ministry said that the ordinance was brought in to tackle the Delhi government's attempt to paralyze the capital and harass officers of the Vigilance Department.The affidavit stated that files from the Vigilance Department, including those related to the Excise Policy case, Arvind Kejriwal's new bungalow, the probe into the Delhi Government ads, and Delhi's power subsidy, were all unlawfully seized by the ministers of the Delhi Government.According to the Ministry's reply, Delhi government officials behaved arrogantly and handled the situation in a highly insensitive manner. The reply further stated that after the apex court's judgment that held that the Delhi government would have control over all services in the national capital, the 'turmoil' in the capital continued in the form of the Delhi government issuing various directions and posting them on social media.In light of the rapidly developing 'embarrassing situation' in the national capital, the Central government chose not to wait until the Monsoon Session of Parliament to enact a law, the reply stated..The ministry further asserted that the Court's interference was unwarranted because Article 239AA(3)(b) of the Constitution explicitly states that the powers of parliament to make laws regarding any matter for a Union territory are not undermined by clause (a).According to the ministry, when Article 239AA(3)(b) is read in conjunction with Article 239AA(7) of the Constitution, it becomes evident that parliament is empowered to enact laws to enforce or supplement the provisions outlined in Article 239AA.Additionally, the ministry argued that Article 246(4) of the Constitution grants parliament the authority to legislate on any matter pertaining to any part of India's territory not covered by a State, even if that matter is listed under the State list of the Constitution.Therefore, the ministry contended that parliament is competent and possesses overriding powers to enact laws, even on subjects for which the Legislative Assembly of Delhi would typically have jurisdiction..A reply was also filed by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi. Both replies contended that the remedy under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was not available to the Government of Delhi as no fundamental right had been violated.Further, the replies emphasized that throughout the entire challenge, there was no contention regarding the promulgation of the ordinance without legislative competence or any non-compliance with Article 123 or other constitutional provisions.They stated that the arguments regarding arbitrariness and malice were based on political grounds rather than legal and constitutional grounds and also underlined that there was no reference to dispute the competence of parliament to enact laws concerning the National Capital Territory (NCT).Accordingly, it was argued that staying the ordinance, which is yet to be tested in parliament, would cause irreparable harm to the administration of GNCTD.