NEW DELHI, May 29: The Supreme Court today sought Delhi government’s response in three weeks on Centre’s plea seeking stay on the High Court judgement which termed as suspect the notification clipping powers of the AAP dispensation.
In its May 21 notification, Centre had restrained the Delhi government’s anti-corruption branch (ACB) from acting against its officers in criminal offences and holding that the LG cannot act in his discretion.
Clarifying that there is no stay on observations made by the Delhi High Court single judge in the May 25 judgement, a vacation bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and U U Lalit said, “we are not inclined to go into the issue of stay at this stage and after getting the reply, we will look into it”.
The bench also issued notice and sought response within six weeks from the Delhi government on the appeal filed by the Centre against the High Court’s judgement.
The bench also said the High Court would hear the fresh petition filed by the Delhi government challenging the May 21 notification of the Centre independently and without being influenced by the observations made by the single judge in his verdict.
As per the notification, the Lieutenant Governor (LG) will have jurisdiction over matters connected with services, public order, police and land and he may consult with the Chief Minister whenever he thinks necessary on issues of services using his own discretion.
At the outset, the bench said that it is upto the Delhi government to decide whether they want to pursue the matter in the Supreme Court or the High Court as the issues are related to Centre’s notification.
The bench also suggested that the matters from High Court be transferred to the apex court.
“Let it be decided for once and all by the final court,” the bench said.
In its petition before the Supreme Court, Centre has said that the observations made by the High Court led to uncertainty and made everyday administration in the national capital difficult.
It has said that there was a need for clear interpretation of Article 239 AA of the Constitution in balance of equation between the Delhi government and the LG.
The Centre also sought stay of the High Court judgement saying it was delivered without hearing it and listed nine grounds for setting it aside including that it “upsets the delicate constitutional balance for governance of Delhi and that too without an opportunity of hearing being given to the Union of India”.
Among the other grounds raised, the Ministry of Home Affairs has said the HC single judge erred in adjudicating the issue regarding the competence of the ACB of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to act on the complaint in the present case without issuing it notice and hearing submission of Union of India.
The petition said that the High Court failed to comply with the fundamental norm of natural justice — the right to be heard and despite recording that “this is an important constitutional issue which has a bearing on the executive authority of the Union” and the “issue cannot be finally determined without hearing the union and examining its stand”, the single judge did not hear it.
The Centre has also said the judge has recorded that the issue is pending before another bench but preferred to go ahead with it without referring it to the bench already seized of the issue.
Assailing the high court judgement, it said that under Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, the legislative assembly of Delhi is vested with the powers only in so far as such matter is applicable to the Union Territory and not otherwise.
Further, the petition has said the constitution status of the NCTD is not the same as that of a state and it is a centrally administered territory of the Union under Schedule 1, Part II and its legislative and executive powers are restricted constitutionally.
It has said questions of law of general public importance arise in the facts and circumstances of the case including whether it is entitled to be heard wherein “a notification issued by it is contended to be invalid by a party to the proceedings”.
The High Court observations and findings had come while dealing with the bail application of a Delhi policeman, Anil Kumar, who was recently arrested by the ACB. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel