‘Handing over capital to complete anarchy’, Centre tells SC seeking services row reference to larger bench The Centre on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to consider referring the issue of control of services in the national capital to a larger bench against the backdrop of the 2018 judgment in the GNCTD vs Union of India case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted before a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, “I have filed an application for reference”. The Chief Justice replied, “We did not hear arguments on reference. It was never argued, now we are in rejoinder…”. Mehta pressed that reference is needed and added that they do not want to be remembered in history for “handling over capital to complete anarchy”.
The bench – also comprising justices M.R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha – said that reference to a larger bench has to be argued at the outset and pointed out that hearing in the case is nearing end. Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, opposed Mehta’s submissions. Mehta argued that when he filed the application seeking reference to the larger bench Delhi government opposed and the court told him that it can be argued during submissions. “Reference is essentially on the ground that contours of federalism between Union and Union Territory require relook. It is covered in my arguments”, said Mehta.
Chief Justice Chandrachud said, “We would have looked at the matter differently, reference was never argued..”. Mehta requested the bench to allow him to submit the application. The bench replied, “we will consider…”. However, the Chief Justice told Mehta that the aspect of reference was not covered in his arguments. Mehta said all points were covered without using the word “reference”.
Opposing Mehta’s arguments, Singhvi submitted that this matter was listed for hearing at least 10 times, first it went to a three-judge bench, and reference was not mentioned. He added that when the matter was listed for hearing recently, then reference was raised.
Singhvi said it is an “ambush” argument and not a whisper was made regarding reference during long arguments. Mehta said it is not a delaying tactic but adjudication of a very important issue relating to the national capital.
The top court allowed Mehta to file submissions on reference to the larger bench in the Centre-Delhi dispute over control on ‘services’.
The top court is hearing a case between the Delhi government and Centre in connection with the administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants.
In July 2018, a constitution bench had held that the executive power of the Union government in respect of NCT of Delhi is confined to land, police and public order under subsection 3 of Article 239AA.
–IANS
–ss/shb/
