New Delhi: Defending its decision to give it control over Delhi’s bureaucracy, the central government on Monday told the Supreme Court that it had to bring the ordinance because ministers in the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Delhi indulged in a “witch-hunt” by harassing them. had started. Officers influence their decision making.
In a written submission, the Center said that during the period between May 11 and May 17, “the virtual turmoil continued, due to which the political executive kept issuing various directives, posting them on social media and calling bureaucrats and officials Keep insulting and insulting”.
Stating that it had to intervene then, the Center argued that such actions were not only not in line with constitutional provisions, effective model governance, democratic norms, but also reflect before the global community as immature and undemocratic acts. Which were literally paralyzing the capital of the country. resulting in anarchy”.
any delay in the proclamation of OrdinanceIt said, “not only would have crippled the administration of the national capital, but would have brought shame to the entire country within and outside the country”.
The ordinance was promulgated in May this year to nullify the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Delhi government has administrative and legislative control over “services”.
The verdict, delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench on May 11, allowed the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government in Delhi to exercise its executive and legislative authority over officers of various services, including those who work under its were not recruited by and were Allotted to Delhi by the Union of India. This included the power to transfer and post officers within the government, make service rules for them, or take any other measure for governance purposes, including passing laws in the assembly.
However, within days of the Supreme Court’s decision, the central government issued an ordinance for the creation of a new statutory authority, the National Capital Civil Services Authority (NCCSA), to handle transfers and postings of bureaucrats in the national capital. this ordinance was then Challenge: before the Apex Court by the Delhi Govt.
Seeking dismissal of the petition, the Central Government argued that “the impugned Ordinance is intended to statutorily balance the concerns of the Central Government as well as the GNCTD with regard to the administration of the Capital of the Country/Union Territory of Delhi by giving objective meaning”. To do.” for the expression of the democratic will of the people reposing faith in the Central Government as well as GNCTD”.
It also argued against a stay on the ordinance, submitting that it was yet to be examined in Parliament and “if stayed, the administration of GNCTD would suffer irreparable damage”.
The central government further said that the ordinance will be tabled in the monsoon session of the Parliament beginning on July 20.
‘Baseless, false and untenable’
The Centre’s affidavit said the Delhi government’s demands in the petition were “baseless, incorrect and untenable”. It pointed out that it is not alleged in the petition that the Ordinance was issued without any legislative competence of the Parliament to make laws for the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.
At the root of the tussle between the Central and Delhi governments is Article 239AA, which was invoked through the Constitution (Sixty-sixth Amendment) Act 1991. This provision gave Delhi the special character of a Union Territory with a Legislative Assembly. LG – a representative of the Central Government – as its administrative head.
This was the time when Delhi was renamed as the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
The Central Government has now relied on this Article to claim that it has the legislative power to issue such an Ordinance.
Article 239AA(3)(b) states that the powers of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi shall not derogate from the powers of Parliament under the Constitution to make laws with respect to any matter for the Union Territory.
It states that the NCT of Delhi continues to be a UT despite the insertion of Article 239AA, and “the Central Government represents the will of the people and, as an elected Government, has a stake in the affairs of the NCT of Delhi”. ” Very important”.
In its affidavit, the Center said, “The national capital belongs to the entire nation and the entire nation has a keen interest in the governance of the national capital. It is in the larger national interest that the people of the entire country have a role to play in the administration of the national capital through a democratically elected central government.”
‘Immature act affects the country badly’
The affidavit also tried to make a case for the ordinance by citing incidents that happened after the Supreme Court’s May 11 judgment and before the ordinance was promulgated.
It claimed that after the verdict, CM Kejriwal met the Lt Governor and the Lt Governor told him that the Supreme Court verdict was “sacred to him and should be followed in letter and spirit”.
The affidavit states that despite this, Kejriwal and other ministers of the Delhi government “in a dramatic and convoluted manner, immediately started a ruckus by issuing orders and posting them on social media, which was in gross violation of the rules and procedure already in place”. is disregarded. for the administrative machinery of the Civil Services Board”.
It claimed that even before the central government issued the ordinance, Kejriwal’s ministers started uploading orders on social media platforms and making statements in the media and witch-hunt, harassment of officials, media trials to influence , threats and began to take a stand on the street. decision making by the authorities”.
It also said that after the verdict, officials working in the vigilance department “have come under particular attack from the elected government”.
Therefore, the Central Government has examined the issue keeping in view the fact that Delhi is the capital of the country and any immature or insensitive act reflects badly on the country’s image outside the world.
Read also: SC invalidates two extensions granted to ED director, asks govt to find replacement in 15 days
‘NCCSA is working efficiently’
In its affidavit, the central government further stated that the NCCSA is functioning “in an efficient manner without any conflict”.
It said the Delhi government is “making claims using imaginary situations” to argue that the elected government would not be able to implement its policy without control over the transfers and postings of these officers.
However, he then claimed that “functional control lies within the concerned ministers”.
It also mentioned the fact that in the last three years, Kejriwal appreciated the work of all IAS officers working in GNCTD and gave them ‘excellent’ rating… except for one officer, wherein such officer was rated ‘very ‘Good’ grading was given. Year 2019-2020.
The Center submitted, “All the IAS officers working in GNCTD have done excellent work during the last three years as per the grading given by the Hon’ble Chief Minister.”
‘Clever Piggybacking’
Defending its decision to cancel the appointments of 437 consultants, fellows and researchers appointed under the fellowship program of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, the LG claimed in a separate affidavit that the appointments were in violation of the provisions of reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and others. was done without following up.
These appointments made by the Delhi government were quashed by the LG earlier this month after the President promulgated a controversial ordinance giving the LG overriding powers over “services”.
The Delhi government had questioned the cancellation of these appointments through an interim application, which it filed along with the petition challenging the ordinance.
According to the LG, the appointments were made without his approval and the selection criteria were revised after inviting applications. He said the selection process was rigged to appoint ineligible persons and was full of nepotism and favoritism.
The LG also questioned the eligibility of the selected candidates, claiming that they had political affiliations, and hence, did not maintain political neutrality. He also gave some examples to counter Delhi government’s contention that the candidates were competent, qualified and had studied from some reputed international institutes.
Further, the LG raised technical objections to the interim application and said that the issue gives a separate cause of action and therefore, the Delhi government should have approached the Delhi High Court instead of approaching the apex court. He said the Supreme Court should not allow “this shrewd loot” of the Delhi government, as it deprives the LG of his right to appeal in case of an adverse order.
As far as the challenge to the ordinance is concerned, the LG said that the Delhi government has made political arguments contrary to legal and constitutional grounds. He argued that as far as Delhi is concerned, there is no reference to counter the overall competence of the Parliament.
(Editing by Amritansh Arora)