Delhi Government v LG: Supreme Court agrees to list case on administrative control over 'services'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list the dispute between the Central and Delhi governments regarding which government has administrative control over the transfers and postings of officers in Delhi [Govt of NCT of Delhi v Union of India]..The case was mentioned before a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. "It's very urgent. Please list it," the Senior Counsel said. The CJI, while agreeing to list the case, asked the Central government to cooperate with the proceedings. The case is slated to be heard by a Constitution bench after a 3-judge bench had in May this year decided to send it to a larger bench on a request by the Central government. .The Delhi government's case is that the elected government of Delhi has been excluded by the Central government from exercising any administrative control over the important bureaucrats and officers and that the officers are continuing to act on the orders of the Central government through the Lieutenant Governor (LG)..In 2018, 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 India.The 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.Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government, had opposed the request of referral, contending that such reference would amount to review of the 2018 judgment.