[Delhi government vs LG - Day 5] Supreme Court reserves judgment

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment in the case between the Central government and Delhi government regarding the administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants in the national capital [Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India]..The fifth and final day of the hearing also witnessed an interesting development with the Central government seeking reference of the matter to a larger bench.The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha was, however, not impressed by the request and asked the government why the same was made towards the end of the hearing."Reference was never argued (earlier). We are on rejoinder (arguments now). Mr Singhvi would have finished yesterday. How can you argue reference now," the CJI asked."Contours of federalism between Centre and states need a re-look. That is why reference," the SG said.The SG also said that the national capital cannot be handed over to "anarchy"."We are dealing with capital of the nation. We may not be remembered as handing over the capital to complete anarchy," the SG said. Senior Advocate Abhishekh Manu Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, said that "a picture was being presented that the national capital is being hijacked." "The problem is the other side is equating parliament with the central government. Parliament can make any law but here it is an executive notification on services," submitted Singhvi. .Background.The case arose in 2018, when a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had interpreted Article 239AA of the Constitution, which contains special provisions with respect to the National Capital Territory. The peculiar status of the NCT and the powers of the Delhi Legislative Assembly and the LG and their interplay were debated in the case.The Court in that judgment had ruled that the LG cannot act independently without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and has to work harmoniously with the NCT government.The appeals relating to individual aspects including services were then placed before a regular Bench for adjudication based on the Constitution Bench judgment.The regular bench had on April 14, 2019, pronounced its verdict on various individual aspects relating to the tussle between the Delhi government and the LG.However, the two judges on the Bench - Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan - had differed on the issue of 'services' under Schedule VII, List II, Entry 41 of the Constitution of IndiaThe issue considered by the Court was whether the exclusion of “services” relatable to Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule from the legislative and executive domain of the NCT of Delhi, vide a notification of the Government of India dated May 21, 2015, is unconstitutional and illegal.Since the judges on the Bench differed, that aspect was referred to a larger Bench and it came up before a three-judge bench.The three-judge bench then referred the matter to the Constitution Bench on Centre's request.The primary basis of the prayer to refer it to a five-judge bench was that the majority judgment of the Constitution Bench did not consider purpose and intent of the expression “insofar as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories” as it occurs in Article 239AA(3) of the Constitution, which is the pivotal and crucial aspect of the said provision..Arguments today.The hearing today began with Central government seeking a reference of the matter to a larger bench.Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, sought reference of the matter stating the 2018 Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court interpreting Article 239AA of the Constitution and laying down powers of the Delhi government, is not in tune with an earlier nine-judge bench judgment of the apex court.The larger bench reference was sought on the ground that the 2018 judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case GNCTD vs Union of India is inconsistent with the nine-judge bench judgment in the case NDMC vs State of Punjab (1996) which had held that Delhi was on the same footing as a Union Territory..Singhvi in his rejoinder arguments submitted that the existence of civil services board in Delhi showed that Delhi was not at par with other Union Territories which does not have such services board..While concluding, Singhvi expressed hope that the boundaries between the Union Territory and the Centre with respect to Delhi is laid out in black and white this time by the Court."In pre independence times, British used to call it Indian Civil Services. Pandit Nehru had remarked that it is neither Indian nor civil. I hope the boundaries are clearly demarcated in black and white this time," Singhvi submitted. .Read our coverage of Day 1 of the hearing here.Read our coverage of Day 2 of the hearing here.Read our coverage of Day 3 of the hearing here.Read our coverage of Day 4 of the hearing here.[Follow our coverage of today's hearing]