Centre-Delhi Services row | Delhi Government resorting to ‘protests and theatrics on the streets’, Centre to Supreme Court

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia during a march against Lt. Governor during Delhi Assembly session, in New Delhi on January 16, 2023.
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

The Centre accused the Delhi Government before a Constitution Bench on January 17 of resorting to “protests and theatrics on the streets” against the Lieutenant Governor even as the Supreme Court is hearing the balance of control between the Arvind Kejriwal Government and the Union over the administration of the National Capital.

Appearing before a five-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said “constitutional functionaries” should know better than to resort to protests when the Supreme Court is hearing the case. The primary issue adjudicated before the Bench is whether the Centre or Delhi Government has control over civil servants, including their postings and transfers, allocated to Delhi departments.

Also read: Explained | The Delhi CM-LG stalemate continues 

The Union’s complaint came a day after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal led his MLAs to Raj Niwas raising slogans against the objections raised by Lieutenant Governor (L-G) Vinai Kumar Saxena to the proposal by Delhi Government to send primary teaching in-charges and educators of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) to Finland for training. The Kejriwal Government has blamed the L-G of interfering in the policies of the elected regime in the capital.

“Whatever is happening is seen by the entire world… it is an embarrassment to the entire country,” Mr. Mehta submitted.

The Centre said it would furnish the court with the facts if the Bench wanted an explanation on the current debacle.

“We are open to it. I will confine myself to the constitutional and legal issues because protests and theatrics can never take the place of legal submissions before the Constitution Bench,” the Solicitor General said.

He said it was quite a “coincidence” that articles have been published and the protests are held in the past eight days ever since the court started hearing the case.

“I will not like to reduce the level of debate on a constitutional issue before the highest court…” Mr. Mehta submitted.

Chief Justice Chandrachud indicated the court cannot decide constitutional questions on the basis of news articles and by being moved by protests.

“We are interpreting the Constitution… Mr. Singhvi, we have already indicated that we are looking into a constitutional issue,” the CJI addressed senior advocate AM Singhvi, who is appearing for the Delhi Government.

Mr. Singhvi said he had much more to say than the Solicitor General on the issue, but had desisted from doing so and confined his arguments in court to the legal issues involved. “Then what is the point of this excursion by then,” he asked.

Mr. Mehta contended that “we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with the National Capital and the Central Government is a major stakeholder”.

The CJI, however, asked Mr. Mehta to focus on the point as to whether “recognising the executive power of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi over the services will detract from the status of Delhi as the National Capital Territory”.

“Delhi has sui generis [unique] character. There is a hybrid mode of governance chosen, where some powers have been ceded by the Centre… We are still a major stakeholder in the administration and not an outsider,” Mr. Mehta said.