Why even elect state government then? SC asks Centre

New Delhi, Jan 13: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the need for having an elected government in Delhi after the Centre asserted the Union Territories are an extension of the Union which wants to administer them. 

 

 

 

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, while continuing the hearing for a third day on the vexatious Centre-Delhi government row over control of services, was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, that Delhi being the national capital has a “unique status” and citizens of all states living there must have a “sense of belongingness”.

 

 

 

Referring to a judgment, the law officer said “Delhi is a cosmopolitan, miniaturized India- it belongs to India”.

During the day-long hearing, the bench, also comprising Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha, referred to the subjects on which the Delhi government is incapable of making laws, and asked about the legal and constitutional position with regard to control of services in the national capital. “As a broad principle, Parliament has the power to legislate upon entries of State and the concurrent list (of the 7th schedule). The Delhi legislative assembly does not have the power to legislate upon lists 1,2,18,64, 65 (Public order, Police and Land, etc) of state list,” the bench said. It said the Delhi legislative assembly has the power to legislate in respect of all entries in the State and the Concurrent list as far as they are applicable to the Union Territory. The bench then said in respect of other entries of the State and Concurrent lists, the Delhi assembly has the right to legislate on subjects applicable to the UT.“Does the legislative entry of services relate to Union Territory?” the bench asked, adding if Parliament has legislative control over certain areas, then what about the executive powers of the Delhi government? The court wanted the solicitor general to tell how legislative control of services was never intended to be part of the legislative powers of Delhi. “The Union Territories are an extension of the Union. The very purpose of creating a geographical area as a UT shows that the Union wants to administer the territory,” the solicitor general said. “Then what is the purpose of having an elected government in Delhi at all? If the administration is by central government only, why to bother with a government,” the bench observed orally. The law officer said certain powers are co-terminus and the functional control over the officers will always remain with the locally elected government. “Functional control will be that of the elected government and we are concerned with administrative control,” he said.

 

Also Read: Former Union Minister Sharad Yadav died at the age of 75 

 

If an officer is not discharging his role as desired, then the Delhi government will have no power to shift him and get someone else, the bench said, adding “can you say that they would not have any jurisdiction on where he should be posted”. The law officer referred to the status of Delhi as the national capital and gave illustrations to buttress his submissions as to why the Centre needed to control the services. “Let us examine the fundamental question, why that control is necessary? Suppose the central government posts an officer and ...as per a policy of the Delhi government, he starts having non-cooperation with another state then there would be a problem,” he said. Moreover, whenever a request is made with regard to an officer, the LG takes the action, he said, adding the power rests with the central government. He then gave the details of the types of services and said All India officers are appointed under the All India Act and they are appointed through the examinations conducted by the UPSC.