The Centre on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that contrary to what the AAP Government in Delhi claimed that the l-G is interfering in its affairs day in and day out, only 655 files came to the l-G in the last three years.
The submission came in response to the AAP Government accusing the l-G of paralysing the Delhi Government's work. The Arvind Kejriwal dispensation claimed that casual vacancies of peons and clerks were waiting to be filled as the files in this regard were pending with l-G.
Opening arguments for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Maninder Singh told a five-judge Constitution Bench, "Most executive actions finish at the Secretary level and even out of 655, 96 per cent came as part of the Transaction Business Rules. It provides that not only the decisions that are recorded, but even the memorandum of meetings and documents sent to Council of Ministers should simultaneously go to l-G."
Painting the submissions of Delhi Government as imaginary, Singh said that an argument was made that the l-G bypasses Ministers and Chief Minister which is not true. "In any meeting called by l-G, the Chief Minister or concerned Minister is invited," the ASG said.
Going to the root of the problem, Singh said that under the Constitutional scheme, Delhi cannot be made a State nor be given the status as equal to State. Under Article 239AA, the provision which makes special provisions for Delhi, what is contemplated is to recognise Delhi as a special Union Territory where executive power is exercised by the Centre through the l-G, acting on behalf of the President. No exclusive power is given to Delhi under Article 239AA, he added.
Referring to provisions in the Constitution, the law officer argued that the text of the Constitution leaves no ambiguity on what is a State and what is Union Territory. The definition of a State includes Union Territory in certain places (Article 3) and in the proviso to this Article defining what is State, the Constitution provides that here the definition of State will not include UT. Again, during the election of President, the Constitution Article 54 provides that 'State' will include the legislative Assembly of Delhi and Puducherry.
In this context, the Centre said that the Courts should not interpret what the Constitution does not expressly provide. Singh said that while dealing with the case at hand, there cannot be a "hybrid" definition between state and UT given to Delhi which was originally not envisaged by Constitution makers. Doing so will create "inevitable chaos", he submitted. The arguments will continue on Wednesday.
The apex court is hearing a clutch of appeals filed by the AAP government challenging Delhi High Court's verdict holding that the l-G was the administrative head of the national Capital.