Delhi government vs LG in Supreme Court: Read our detailed coverage of the 5-day Constitution Bench hearing

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict tomorrow on whether the Central or Delhi government has administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants in the national capital..Bar & Bench had reported on each day of the hearing at length. Go through our coverage here:Day 1 of the hearingDay 2 of the hearingDay 3 of the hearingDay 4 of the hearingDay 5 of the hearing.The Bench had reserved its verdict in the matter on January 18 this year.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 (NCT). 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..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. The three-judge bench then referred the matter to the Constitution Bench on the 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 the 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.