SC reserves order on plea to refer Centre-Delhi row to Constitution bench

A three-judge bench presided by CJI N V Ramana told the two sides that if it decides to refer the matter, they should conclude the arguments by May 15, so the judges can utilise the recess to work on the judgment.

Supreme Court, Supreme Court of India, National Capital Territory, Delhi government, Delhi news, Delhi city news, New Delhi, India news, Indian Express News Service, Express News Service, Express News, Indian Express India News

The Centre had said it requires further interpretation of Article 239AA, which gives special status to Delhi, before the dispute can be settled.

The Supreme Court Thursday reserved its order on the Centre’s plea that the matter related to its dispute with the Delhi government over control of administrative services in the National Capital Territory should be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench as it involves interpretation of a substantial question of law.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli told the two sides that if it decides to refer the matter to a Constitution bench, they should conclude the arguments by May 15, so the judges can utilise the recess to work on the judgment. This comes after the Centre sought to refer the matter to a Constitution bench saying it requires further interpretation of Article 239AA, which gives special status to Delhi, before the dispute can be settled.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that though a five-judge Constitution bench had looked at Article 239AA in July 2018, it did not interpret the expression “insofar as any such matter as applicable to Union Territories” appearing in the Article. This precluded a two-judge bench of the court, which ruled in February 2019 that the Delhi government cannot investigate corruption cases against central government officials, from deciding the question of who will have control over administrative services.

As such, a decision on the substantial question of law by a Constitution bench is necessary to decide the individual issues before the court, the Centre said.

Stating that a Constitution bench had already interpreted Article 239AA in its July 2018 judgment, senior advocate Abhishek M Singhvi opposed the demand. “Existence of a substantial question of law does not weigh on the stakes of the case. Here there is a Constitution bench judgment already,” said Singhvi.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram