New Delhi: The Supreme Court today (May 11) ruled unanimously in favour of Delhi government on the issue of who controls the bureaucracy in the national capital. The 5-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, held that the legislature has control over bureaucrats in administration of services, except in areas outside the legislative powers of the National Capital Territory (NCT). There are three areas outside the control of Delhi government: public order, police and land.
The CJI said an ideal conclusion would be that the Delhi government ought to have control over services, subject to exclusion of subjects which are out of its legislative domain. If services are excluded from its legislative and executive domain, the ministers and the executive, who are charged with formulating policies in the territory of NCTD would be excluded from controlling the civil service officers who implement such executive decisions, he said.
The CJI said, “The legislative and executive power of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) over entry 41 shall not extend over to services related to public order, police and land. However, legislative and executive power over services such as IAS or joint cadre services, which are relevant for the for the implementation for the policies and the vision of NCTD in terms of day to day administration of the region shall lie with the NCTD.”
The question of the regulation of services was a major part of the overall dispute between the elected government in Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) nominated by the Centre. The legal battle has been protracted, and the verdict of the Supreme Court will have far-reaching implications. Almost five years ago, another Constitution Bench of the court had ruled in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party-led state government in a similar tussle.
The CJI-led Bench in the present matter also comprises Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha. The verdict is unanimous, and has been written by the CJI. Here’s the background of the case.
