Delhi Ordinance: SC refuses to grant interim stay, to hear matter on July 17

As the LG had not been added as a party to the petition, the Court also allowed the petitioner to do so.

Appearing for the AAP government, senior advocate A M Singhvi pressed for a “qualified stay”.

Claiming that the Ordinance takes the powers away from elected representatives, the senior counsel said 437 independent consultants engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had been fired by the LG.

He also referred to instances “where the SC had stayed an Act of Parliament, leave aside an Ordinance.”

If an Ordinance tries to nullify the pillar of a judgement of the court, the Court stays it, he added.

“Can your Lordships imagine a meeting where a Chief Minister sits in a minority, two bureaucrats say… we believe prima facie this proposal is illegal. First, those two will outvote the CM. They will then refer it to the LG who is the super CM,” contended Singhvi.

He added that “the pillar of your (SC) judgment is civil service accountability to the executive… federalism, decentralisation, democratic government. You might not even have Article 239AA. It’s a serious issue. Therefore, either Your Lordships may consider stay or as a first step, stay the para of 437 independent consultants… fired by the LG… Give a qualified stay and call it on Friday… Their salary is stopped, they are stopped from working…”

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there are “some shocking facts”.

“One of the persons removed is the wife of a sitting MLA. There are several party workers who were appointed without following the due process. I will have to place it on record,” he said, adding that the affected persons could always approach the high court.

Appearing for the LG, senior advocate Sanjay Jain said “the question is the minister is signing these Article 32 petition for and on behalf of the party workers who have put in those 400 positions and various such matters have been challenged before Delhi HC also. The affected person should go before the HC.”

The CJI, however, told Mehta, “You have a look at the prayer for interim relief… we will take it up on Monday (July 17).”

The AAP government plea which prayed for an immediate interim stay says the “Ordinance… completely sidelines the elected Government, i.e. the GNCTD, from control over its civil service.”

“(It) wrests control over civil servants… from the GNCTD to the unelected Lieutenant Governor (LG),” the plea further states.

The ordinance, the plea adds, does so without seeking to amend the Constitution of India, in particular Article 239AA of the Constitution, from which flows the substantive requirement that power and control in respect of Services be vested in the elected government.

The Delhi government termed the Ordinance “an unconstitutional exercise of executive fiat that… violates the scheme of federal, democratic governance entrenched for the NCTD in Article 239AA…”

The AAP-led government contended that it “is an impermissible and unconstitutional abuse of ordinance-making powers under Article 123 of the Constitution.”

It alleged that the “unseemly hurry in reversing” the SC ruling “via Ordinance, and the timing of its promulgation, reveals a conscious intent to avoid democratic as well judicial deliberations that could safeguard the interests of the people of Delhi.”