Delhi High Court’s opinion in Anil Kumar case terming the Home Ministry Notification dated 21.05.2015 as ‘suspect’ is tentative

Supreme Court: In a major development with regard to the ongoing struggle between the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Lieutenant Governor and the Union of India with regard to the Notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 21.05.2015, which directed the Lieutenant Governor of the NCT of Delhi, to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Central Government, to the extent delegated to him from time to time by the President as per the provisions of Articles 239 and 239AA (3)(a) of the Constitution, in respect of matters connected with ‘Public Order’, ‘Police’, ‘Land’ and ‘Services’, the Division Bench of A.K. Sikri and U.U. Lalit, JJ., observed that the opinion of the Delhi High Court in Anil Kumar v. GNCT, Delhi, Bail Appln. 878/2015, terming the MHA Notification as ‘suspect’ was tentative in nature and was not a decision upon the validity of the Notification as the Union of India was not a party to the suit. The Court further added that the Delhi High Court can deal with the issue separately without being influenced by the opinion given in Anil Kumar case.

In addition to the Supreme Court’s above-mentioned Order, the Delhi High Court while hearing upon the writ petition W.P.(C) 5888/2015 filed by the GNCT of Delhi challenging the impugned Notification issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, sought to end the stalemate situation prevailing with regard to the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in matters of transfer and posting of public servants. Rajiv Shakdher, J. passed an interim Order stating that the Lieutenant Governor would be authorized to deliberate and take decisions regarding the transfer and posting of public servants and can seek further clarifications upon the matter from the Council of Ministers. The matter shall be further heard by the High Court on 11.08.2015. Union of India v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 526, decided on 29.05.2015

 

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twenty − 11 =