The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the Centre-Delhi Government row over control of services in the national Capital, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta describing AAP Government working style as anarchic and Delhi Government seeking the apex court for clear demarcation of power between Centre and State.
While the five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chadrachud reserved the verdict, Mehta also sought for referring the case for larger bench of nine judges and sought to file additional notes. Abhishek Manu Sighvi appearing for Delhi Government opposed SG’s last minute demands. Singhvi opposed the submissions of the Solicitor General, saying “this matter had come before a Division Bench at least 10 times over a year.” He said the review of the 2018 judgment in the Delhi-Centre case is being sought now and this is “hugely dilatory”.
“It can be anything but dilatory. We are dealing with the capital of the nation. My friend (Singhvi) is in tremendous hurry, we may not be remembered as handing over the capital to complete anarchy,” the law officer responded. “This is a question of law. You (SG) can circulate a note,” said the bench which also comprised justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha.
Singhvi concluded his rejoinder submissions by saying, “I hope the boundaries are clearly demarcated in black and white this time.” He said the existence of civil services board in Delhi shows that the national capital is not on par with other union territories (UTs), which do not have such services boards.
“A picture is being presented that the national capital is being hijacked. The problem is the other side is equating Parliament with the central government. Parliament can make any law but here it is an executive notification on services (which is under challenge),” he said while concluding his submissions. Prior to his submissions, the Solicitor General had said that a “crafted perception” has been created that the Delhi government has no powers.
The top court, on Tuesday, observed orally it was difficult to accept the Centre’s submission that the concept of federalism does not apply to a union territory as even ‘panchayats’ are an example for “decentralisation of power”.
Singhvi had said “I am seeking what is rightfully mine, my legislative rights in Entry 41 (State public services; State Public Service Commission) of the State list. I seek all my legislative rights under all entries of the State list minus three entries (Public order, Police and Land).” Singhvi had also said he was seeking all executive powers in relation to the entries under the State List where the Delhi legislative assembly is capable of making laws.