Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday referred Delhi government’s plea challenging May 19 order against a Central ordinance, which effectively gives power over civil services in the national capital to the Lieutenant Governor, to a constitutional bench.
The plea was referred by a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Mishra.
Notably, SC on Monday had already expressed its inclination but had posted the plea for Thursday against the backdrop of Delhi govt objecting to the court’s inclination to refer the matter to a constitutional bench.
In the brief hearing that transpired on Monday, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi in an attempt to urge the court to not refer the matter to a constitution bench said that such reference would paralyse the entire constitutional scheme due to the time that would take for the court to decide the matter. He also urged the court to push back the scheduled hearing of pleas related to the abrogation of Article 370 and to listen to the ordinance matter first.
Turning down Singhvi’s request of pushing back the hearing that is scheduled to commence on August 2, CJI said, “We will not change the scheduling of 370.”
Appearing for the Centre, AG R Venkataramani while referring to various rulings said that a matter can be referred to the constitution bench whenever the court deems so and there is no need for arguing on the reference.
ALSO READ | Decision on Delhi ordinance issue will be taken before Parliament session: Kharge
During the course of the hearing, Singhvi also questioned LG VK Saxena’s decision of terminating 437 consultants appointed by the Delhi govt. “He has no power to run the Delhi administration,” Singhvi said.
For LG VK Saxena, Senior Advocate Harish Salve told the court that the 437 consultants were not terminated by the LG under the ordinance. Explaining the court the manner in which they were illegally appointed, Salve said, “There was rank illegal appointment of a person who just happens to be party workers. LG did not terminate them under the ordinance. These people were party workers and the procedure to hire was flawed. These appointments were at taxpayers’ cost. People who have conducted these interviews and it is by sheer coincidence that they happen to be members of political parties.”
The impugned ordinance has the effect of abolishing the constitutional scheme and it doesn’t require reference to a constitution bench. Any reference to the constitution bench will make the whole system to be in paralysis because of the time it takes. No bureaucrat is taking orders. 437 consultants- how does the governor have the power to remove him under the ordinance? He has no power to run the Delhi administration.
Justifying the passing of the ordinance, MHA in the affidavit had told Supreme Court it had to be brought in urgently because Delhi Govt was attempting to ‘paralyze’ the capital and harass officers of the Vigilance Dept. It was further contended that files from the Vigilance Dept including files in the Excise Policy case, those regarding Arvind Kejriwal’s new bungalow, probe in the Delhi Govt ads and Delhi’s power subsidy etc were all taken into unlawful custody by the Delhi Government ministers from the Vigilance Dept.
ALSO READ | Kejriwal asks oppn parties to clear stand on Delhi ordinance
The affidavit had said that after SC’s May 11 ruling, the CM and other ministers in a dramatic and consulted fashion immediately went on a rampage by issuing orders and posting them on social media, making statements and starting a witch hunt, harassing or officers, and media trials.
It was also stated that the Parliament session was two months away when the decision to promulgate the ordinance was taken and any delay would not have paralysed the administration of GNCTD but would have embarrassed the entire nation within and outside the country.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday referred Delhi government’s plea challenging May 19 order against a Central ordinance, which effectively gives power over civil services in the national capital to the Lieutenant Governor, to a constitutional bench.
The plea was referred by a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Mishra.
Notably, SC on Monday had already expressed its inclination but had posted the plea for Thursday against the backdrop of Delhi govt objecting to the court’s inclination to refer the matter to a constitutional bench. googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); });
In the brief hearing that transpired on Monday, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi in an attempt to urge the court to not refer the matter to a constitution bench said that such reference would paralyse the entire constitutional scheme due to the time that would take for the court to decide the matter. He also urged the court to push back the scheduled hearing of pleas related to the abrogation of Article 370 and to listen to the ordinance matter first.
Turning down Singhvi’s request of pushing back the hearing that is scheduled to commence on August 2, CJI said, “We will not change the scheduling of 370.”
Appearing for the Centre, AG R Venkataramani while referring to various rulings said that a matter can be referred to the constitution bench whenever the court deems so and there is no need for arguing on the reference.
ALSO READ | Decision on Delhi ordinance issue will be taken before Parliament session: Kharge
During the course of the hearing, Singhvi also questioned LG VK Saxena’s decision of terminating 437 consultants appointed by the Delhi govt. “He has no power to run the Delhi administration,” Singhvi said.
For LG VK Saxena, Senior Advocate Harish Salve told the court that the 437 consultants were not terminated by the LG under the ordinance. Explaining the court the manner in which they were illegally appointed, Salve said, “There was rank illegal appointment of a person who just happens to be party workers. LG did not terminate them under the ordinance. These people were party workers and the procedure to hire was flawed. These appointments were at taxpayers’ cost. People who have conducted these interviews and it is by sheer coincidence that they happen to be members of political parties.”
The impugned ordinance has the effect of abolishing the constitutional scheme and it doesn’t require reference to a constitution bench. Any reference to the constitution bench will make the whole system to be in paralysis because of the time it takes. No bureaucrat is taking orders. 437 consultants- how does the governor have the power to remove him under the ordinance? He has no power to run the Delhi administration.
Justifying the passing of the ordinance, MHA in the affidavit had told Supreme Court it had to be brought in urgently because Delhi Govt was attempting to ‘paralyze’ the capital and harass officers of the Vigilance Dept. It was further contended that files from the Vigilance Dept including files in the Excise Policy case, those regarding Arvind Kejriwal’s new bungalow, probe in the Delhi Govt ads and Delhi’s power subsidy etc were all taken into unlawful custody by the Delhi Government ministers from the Vigilance Dept.
ALSO READ | Kejriwal asks oppn parties to clear stand on Delhi ordinance
The affidavit had said that after SC’s May 11 ruling, the CM and other ministers in a dramatic and consulted fashion immediately went on a rampage by issuing orders and posting them on social media, making statements and starting a witch hunt, harassing or officers, and media trials.
It was also stated that the Parliament session was two months away when the decision to promulgate the ordinance was taken and any delay would not have paralysed the administration of GNCTD but would have embarrassed the entire nation within and outside the country.
