29.4.2022, Thursday, New Delhi
Supreme Court reserves order on sending ‘services’ case of Delhi Legislative competence to
five-judge bench
A three-judge bench headed by
CJI NV Ramana will decide on the limited question of whether a five-judge
bench, which interpreted the power of the Delhi assembly under Article 239AA by
its judgment of July 4, 2018, should also determine whether Delhi can legislate
on ‘services’.
The Supreme Court on Thursday
reserved its order on referring to a Constitution bench the power tussle
between the Centre and the Delhi government on which of them has the
legislative competence to transfer and appoint officers in the Capital.
A three-judge bench headed by
Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana will decide on the limited question of
whether a five-judge bench, which interpreted the power of the Delhi assembly
under Article 239AA by its judgment of July 4, 2018, should also determine
whether Delhi, which enjoys a unique place in the Constitution since it has an
assembly despite being a Union territory, can legislate on “services”.
Earlier, a two-judge bench of
the top court in February 2019 gave a split verdict on the issue, due to which
the matter was referred to a three-judge bench. On Thursday, the bench, also
comprising justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, asked the Delhi government if it
had any objection to the matter being referred to five judges. Two days ago,
the Centre moved an application stating that the matter on “services” should be
considerated by a five-judge Constitution bench as it raised a substantial
question of law on the interpretation of Article 239AA.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu
Singhvi, appearing for Delhi government submitted that the July 2018 verdict by
a Constitution bench held the field by ruling that barring land, law and order,
and police, the legislative competence of Delhi assembly extended to all other
issues.
“Once the Constitution bench
has decided the matter, there is no point in asking again and again for a
reference. This amounts to saying we want a Constitution bench to consider the
decision of another Constitution bench. If at all, a Constitution bench sits,
the matter should then go to a seven-judge bench. This argument by Centre is an
attempt to review and reconsider the earlier judgment on a plea of reference.”
Solicitor general (SG)
Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, denied that there was any suggestion to
refer the matter to a seven-judge bench. He referred to Article 239AA(3), which
says, “Subject to the provisions of Constitution, the Legislative Assembly (of
Delhi) shall have power to make laws for the whole or any part of the National
Capital Territory with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State
List or in the Concurrent List in so far as any such matter is applicable to
Union territories….”