Delhi Govt vs LG : Who Has Power To Control Civil Services In GNCTD? Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgment

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on the dispute between the Delhi government and the union government regarding control of administrative services in the National Capital Territory of DelhiThe five-judge bench of Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justices M. R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P. S. Narasimha heard the rejoinder submissions of Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the GNCTDThe Court also expressed surprise at the plea made by the Central government to refer the 2018 judgment in the GNCTD v. Union of India case to a larger bench, at the fag end of the hearing in the dispute relating to control of civil services in the Delhi government.SG Tushar Mehta: "On Prem Kumar Jain's case, I may be permitted to file a two-page note on how it is not good law. I will file it by tomorrow. Secondly, I have already filed an application seeking reference, I have already argued the points"Justice Chandrachud: "But we didn’t hear any arguments on the reference. This was never argued. We are now in rejoinder. It cannot be now after Dr Singhvi is in rejoinder, that your reference has to be argued. Dr Singhvi would have finished yesterday virtually. We were also flagging in energy at the end of the day yesterday and we thought we should give a fresh...."SG: "Your lordships would recall that when I filed the application and Dr Singhvi objected, your lordships said 'you can always argue during submissions'. The Chief Justice was pleased to say so. Reference essentially is on the ground that the contours of federalism between union and union territories requires a relook. I am not repeating anything. It was covered in my argument. I will just put a two-page note. Your lordships infact said that let it not be separated and would be covered in the arguments"Justice Chandrachud: "Reference was never argued. We would look at the matter very differently if the issue of reference was there. Now your side of arguments is finished....Alright, we will consider...."SG: "When I mentioned that please allow me to circulate, your lordships have said that you can always cover it in your arguments"Justice Chandrachud: "But it was not covered in the arguments, that is the point"SG: "All points are covered without using the word 'reference'"Dr. Singhvi: "This matter came before a division bench about 10 times. I think Justice Kohli was part of that bench. Over 10 times in one year or six months. It was listed for hearing, it went to three-judge. And not once was the reference mentioned, no application was filed. The matter was listed for the 10th and just a few weeks before that, it is raised. It is not told to your lordships that the prayer is identical to a review filed by my learned friend 3 1/2 years after the 2018 Constitution bench judgment (in the GNCTD case). This is nothing but the same thing. He files it in May, 2021, 3 1/2 years later. He is saying that the judgment should be reviewed because it is contrary to NDMC. That is the short point. Identical prayer in the review filed 3 1/2 years later. It was repeated again a few weeks before this bench was to convene. The Constitution bench does not allow these things. The reference is simply one sentence that there is the NDMC case and NDMC is nine judges and it should be referred. Your lordships have dealt with NDMC, good, bad or indifferent atleast 10 times in the constitution bench. What your lordships do in it is your lordships' prerogative there. You have already dealt with NDMC. For that reason, it should be referred to 9 judges or maybe 11? With due respect, this will be hugely dilatory after your lordships spent all this time today and we have gone to the Constitution bench and into everything...."SG: "It can be anything but dilatory. Your lordships are dealing with the national capital. It may be done today or tomorrow, it hardly makes a difference. But my learned friend seems to be in a tremendous hurry to do certain things. We are more on the future course of action. We may not be remembered in history for having handed over the capital to complete anarchy. That is my argument and I have made the submission. I will just put in a two-page note"Dr. Singhvi: "It is 140-150 pages. No reason given for reference. Don’t repeat this 'capital' as a mantra every time. Of course, it is the capital. But it is the capital with a legislature and with democracy. Today your lordships, having dealt with the entire 2018 judgment in so many paras, at the end of my rejoinder, a reference is sought?" It is unprecedented for a constitution bench"SG: "I have covered the issues in my submission. If your lordships permit, I will place a two-page note. Can I place a two page note?"Dr. Singhvi: "I would object. It will be ground subsequently for a nine judge bench"Justice Chandrachud : "No difficulty, you can certainly circulate your note. It is a question of law"SG: "Yes. And it’s entirely your lordships prerogative. Your Lordships may only record that your ...

Delhi Govt vs LG : Who Has Power To Control Civil Services In GNCTD? Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgment

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Delhi Govt vs LG : Who Has Power To Control Civil Services In GNCTD? Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgment

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers