Delhi Govt v LG Services Dispute | Recap Of Arguments Raised Before Supreme Court Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce tomorrow the judgment in the matter pertaining to the dispute between the Delhi government and the union government regarding control of administrative services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The matter has been at the center of a constitutional dispute concerning the allocation of powers and delineation of responsibilities between the Delhi Government and the LG. The decision will likely have far-reaching implications for the functioning of the Delhi administration and may serve as a benchmark for the interplay between elected representatives and appointed officials in India.This article seeks to provide an overview of the key arguments presented by both sides during the proceedings and sheds light on the fundamental issues at stake. What is the issue about?The issue in the case is whether the Government of NCT of Delhi has legislative and executive powers in relation to 'services' under Schedule VII, List II, and Entry 41 of the Constitution of India and whether the officers of the various 'services' such as IAS, IPS, DANICS, and DANIPS, who have been allocated to Delhi by the Union of India, come under the administrative control of the Government of NCT of Delhi.In February 2019, two Judges of the Supreme Court had expressed divergent views, pursuant to which, the matter was directed to be placed before a three judge bench for resolution. Justice AK Sikri held that transfers and posting of officers of and above the rank of Joint Secretary are under the powers of Lieutenant General of Delhi; other officers are under the control of Delhi Govt. Justice Ashok Bhushan dissented to hold that "services" were totally outside the purview of Delhi Government. In 2022, the then Chief Justice Of India, NV Ramana constituted a three judge bench to decide upon the dispute. Later, the three judge bench referred to a Constitution Bench limited questions pertaining to the legal dispute. Following this, the five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha started hearing the dispute. Arguments raised by GNCTD1. Accountability of civil servants to people must be ensuredGNCTD argued that the case was not merely about distribution of powers between the union and the NCT but was about whether civil servants serving in the NCT were accountable through the government to the people of Delhi who had elected the Delhi government. To establish the same, it was argued that there existed a chain, the first link of which was that civil servants must be accountable to ministers. The second link of the chain was that the ministers were accountable to the legislature. Finally, the members of the legislature were accountable to the people who elected them. This chain ensured that the accountability of the civil servants got fused ultimately with the people who elected the government.2. A minimum dual set of governments operates in all federal systemsThe Delhi Government stated that in any federal system there was at the minimum a dual set of governments operating. Further federalism was ultimately a vehicle for manifesting diversity. To further its submissions, Delhi government argued that national capitals in federal system across the world, irrespective of the model they followed of distribution of power between the federal government and the local government, did not envisage a situation where the local government was incapable of appointing and controlling civil servants/staff to the Government and to control their day to day functioning. 3. A government cannot function without the power of managing civil services It was submitted that the power of creating and managing civil services and posts, appointing persons, transferring persons, and allocating persons to such posts was essential for a functioning Government and to ensure democratic accountability. Further, while the government is represented at the political level by ministers who created policies, the implementation of those policies depended only upon the civil servants. Thus, for the smooth functioning of a government, it must have the power to manage civil services.4. No real interest of central governmentIt was contended that the ability to function of any civil servant who was under the Delhi government was limited by the competence of the Delhi government alone. Thus, the central government had no real interest in controlling civil services.5. Scheme of Article 239AA provides GNCTD executive powersGNCTD emphasized that Article 239AA granted the Legislative Assembly of Delhi significant executive powers to make laws on matters within its legislative competence. Further, the intent behind Article 239AA was to provide Delhi with a representative form of government, allowing the elected government to exercise executive powers over a range of subjects. It was also stated that the phrase "in so far as" under Article 239AA indicated a ...

Delhi Govt v LG Services Dispute | Recap Of Arguments Raised Before Supreme Court Constitution Bench

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags