SC to pronounce verdict on Delhi-Centre row over control of services on Thursday

New Delhi, May 10 (IANS) The Supreme Court would pronounce its verdict on Thursday in a case between the Delhi government and Centre in connection with the administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants.

On January 18, a bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices M.R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha - reserved the judgment after hearing Solicitor General Mehta, representing the Centre, and senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, for almost four and a half days.

Mehta contended before the apex court that he had filed an application for reference of the matter to a larger bench. The Chief Justice replied, "We did not hear arguments on reference. It was never argued, now we are in rejoinder...". Mehra pressed that reference is needed, adding that "they do not want to be remembered in history for handling over capital to complete anarchy".

Singhvi opposed Mehta's submissions. Mehta argued that when he filed the application seeking reference to the larger bench, the Delhi government opposed it 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.

Earlier, the Centre had filed an interim application seeking reference to a larger bench of nine or more judges in the Delhi-Centre dispute over control of services.

But the Chief Justice said: "We would have looked at the matter differently, reference was never argued." As 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 application filed by the Centre had said that it is seeking reference of appeal to a larger bench of this court for a "holistic interpretationa of Article 239AA of the Constitution, core to the determination of issues involved".

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.

The Centre, in its application seeking reference to a larger bench, said that the issue pertains to the administration of the country's capital and, therefore, it is a question of constitutional interpretation.