The Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP Government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Government of India’s May 19 ordinance which introduced a ‘National Capital Civil Services Authority’ to make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor regarding matters concerning transfer posting, vigilance and other incidental matters.
Meanwhile, the Government of India has moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of the May 11 judgment, wherein the Supreme Court held that the Delhi Government has “legislative power over “services” (excluding ‘public order’, ‘police’, and ‘land’) under Entry 41 in List II, the Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the decisions of GNCTD on services.”
Government of India’s Ordinance
On May 19, the Government of India issued an ordinance amending the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, to constitute a ‘National Capital Civil Services Authority’ in Delhi. The Government of India’s ordinance comes after the Supreme Court’s May 11 ruling that the GNCTD has the legislative and executive power over administrative services in Delhi, excluding matters concerning public order, police and land.
The ordinance’s recitals state that the permanent authority “is being introduced to make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor regarding matters concerning transfer posting, vigilance and other incidental matters” to give effect to “the intent and purpose behind the provisions of Article 239AA.”
The ordinance’s recitals also read, “Delhi as the national capital has a unique status and certain distinguishing features. There is a need to promote the national interests without compromising on the democratic aspirations of the residents of Delhi.”
Supreme Court’s May 11 Judgement
On May 11, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the GNCTD wherein it held that the Delhi Government has “legislative power over “services” (excluding ‘public order’, ‘police’, and ‘land’) under Entry 41 in List II, the Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the decisions of GNCTD on services.”
The court said, “If services are excluded from its legislative and executive domain, the ministers and the executive who are charged with formulating policies in the territory of NCTD would be excluded from controlling the civil service officers who implement such executive decisions.”
Comments