Pinnacle court refers issue of control of services in Delhi to constitution bench

07-05-2022

The Apex court brought up a constitution bench the facility tussle between the Centre and therefore the Delhi government in reference to control over the executive services.

A bench, headed by justice N.V. Ramana, said: "The limited issue that has been named this Bench, relates to the scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and NCT Delhi with relevancy the term 'services'. The Constitution Bench of this court, while interpreting Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, failed to find any occasion to specifically interpret the impact of the wordings of the identical with relevance Entry 41 within the State List."

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said: "We therefore, deem it appropriate to refer the above-limited question, for an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution."

It directed the registry to put the papers of this appeal similarly because the connected writ petition before the justice on the executive side for constituting a five-judge bench, and stuck the matter for consideration on May 11.

The Centre had moved an application seeking reference of the dispute to a constitution bench keeping in sight Article 145(3), on the premise that the erstwhile constitution bench, while construing Article 239AA, has not elucidated on truth meaning and import of the expression "in to date as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories" as mentioned in subclause (a) clause (3) of Article 239AA.

In 2018, a constitution bench had ruled that police, land, and public order are the domain of the Centre, and therefore the rest is under the Delhi government. Both have locked horns over control of several wings of administration within the capital.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, emphatically opposed the respect to a bigger bench. He said Article 239AA (3) has been exhaustively interpreted by the erstwhile constitution bench, both in explicit additionally as in implicit terms. Singhvi argued that the solitary unresolved issue may be conclusively decided by these three judges' bench, with none legal necessity to form an additional relevance a constitution bench.

Singhvi also posited that the question of interpretation of Article 239AA (3), having been authoritatively settled by the sooner constitution bench, can't be re-opened on the mere asking of the Centre, because the same would be contradictory to the doctrine of precedent.

The Centre filed the applying seeking to refer the bear on a constitution bench for a holistic interpretation of Article 239AA.

The bench noted that from the reference application moved by the Union of India, similarly because the rival contentions of the parties, the most bone of contention relates to the interpretation of the phrases: "in up to now as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories" and "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution" as contained in Article 239AA(3)(a).

"On perusing the Constitution Bench judgment, it appears that each one the problems except the one pending consideration before this bench, are elaborately restrained. Therefore, we don't deem it necessary to revisit the problems that already stand settled by the previous Constitution Bench," said the highest court.

On April 28, after a close hearing within the matter, the highest court reserved its order on the Centre's plea to refer its dispute with the Delhi government -- on the transfer and posting of officers within the metropolis -- to a five-judge constitution bench.