Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said on Wednesday that history should not remember him as handing over power to “complete anarchy” in the capital as he requested the Supreme Court to refer the case on separation of powers. was Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi And the Chief Minister before the larger bench.
The Delhi government was responding to the Centre’s submissions on the closing day of arguments when Mehta pleaded before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, which began hearing the case last week. .
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, opposed the plea. “It is very tense from the Centre. Today we have gone through all the submissions. Even during the reference no argument was given on this aspect.
Mehta, the Centre’s second-highest law officer, discussed the issue related to the national capital. “We may not go down in history as having surrendered the capital to complete anarchy.”
Mehta said constitutional activists should avoid resorting to “theatrics” when the matter is pending in court. He added that it was rare that the division of powers was protested when the five-judge bench was considering the matter.
Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal On Tuesday, LG Vinay Kumar Saxena once again questioned the alleged interference in governance in a scathing speech in the Delhi Assembly. The ruling Aam Aadmi Party had earlier protested against Saxena’s alleged move to stop training programs for school teachers abroad.
The court said on Wednesday that if there had been an argument before a larger bench, it would have looked at the matter differently. “No argument has been given by you (Centre). Such an argument should have been given in the beginning.
Mehta said he filed a petition seeking a reference to a larger bench before hearing the matter. “At that time, we were asked to make it part of our submissions. Allow us to make a two-page note. The court can consider it as part of our submissions.
A reference petition in this case was filed in December. It said the 2018 Constitution Bench judgment on the issue was against the Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench judgment in the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) case in 1997, which held that Delhi is a Despite being a Union Territory and not a State. A legislative assembly.
In light of this judgment, the Center asked for control of services to be referred to a bench of nine or more judges.
The reference petition raised a preliminary objection to a five-judge bench hearing a dispute on “services” arising out of a May 2015 notification by the Center which added entry 41 under List II to the “Public Services” Act. was kept out of the scope of composition. Delhi Govt
The Delhi government argued that it was against the Supreme Court’s decision. In July 2018, the court said that land, police, and public order come under the central government and therefore the LG, along with the rest, under the elected government of Delhi. The Delhi government has argued that it should have legislative and consequential executive power.
Singhvi told the court that the reference prayer was similar to the Centre’s review petition in May 2021 challenging the 2018 judgment. The 2018 judgment had said that the LG should act on the advice and assistance of the Council of Ministers of the Delhi government except in matters of public order, land and police.
He said that the decision of the nine-judge bench in the NDMC case has also been considered in the 2018 judgment.
A bench also comprising Justices MR Shah, Krishna Marari, Hema Kohli and PS Narasimha allowed the Center to file a note. “You can give your note. It’s a question of law.”
Mehta said that his written submissions filed in the matter, though the word reference is not mentioned, include all submissions that rely on his nine-judge bench NDMC case and how the 2018 judgment went against it. came.
The proceedings continued for an hour before the five-judge bench reserved its verdict on the Delhi government’s plea.
Supreme Court (T) Delhi (T) Power Tusl