Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: CJI Ranjan Gogoi has said that the Court will look into the plea of the Government of NCT of Delhi has sought constitution of a larger bench to expeditiously decide the issue of who controls the services in Delhi.

The bench of Dr. AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ had, on February 14, put an end to ‘almost’ all the issues related to the powers exercisable by and functions of the elected Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) vis-a-vis the Central Government. However, the judges differed on the question relating to ‘Service matters’.

While both the judges agreed that Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is not available to the Delhi Legislative Assembly as Entry 41 of List II deals with ‘State Public Services’ and ‘State Public Service Commission’ and that State Public Service Commission does not exist in NCTD, they differed on the issue of power to transfer and appoint certain officers.

Justice Sikri Justice Bhushan
The transfers and postings of Secretaries, HODs and other officers in the scale of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and above can be done by the Lieutenant Governor and the file submitted to him directly. For other levels, including DANICS officers, the files can be routed through the Chief Minister to Lieutenant Governor. In case of difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister, the view of the Lieutenant Governor should prevail and the Ministry of Home Affairs can issue a suitable notification in this regard. I having held that Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is not available to the Legislative Assembly of GNCTD, there is no occasion to exercise any Executive power with regard to “Services” by the GNCTD, since the Executive power of the GNCTD as per Article 239AA(4) extend in relation to matters with respect to which Legislative Assembly has power to make laws. With regard to “Services” GNCTD can exercise only those Executive powers, which can be exercised by it under any law framed by the Parliament or it may exercise those Executive powers, which have been delegated to it.

To read the full report report on February 14 verdict, click here.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ has put an end to ‘almost’ all the issues related to the powers exercisable by and functions of the elected Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) vis-a-vis the Central Government.

Difference on opinion on issue relating to ‘service’ matters:

While both the judges agreed that Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is not available to the Delhi Legislative Assembly as Entry 41 of List II deals with ‘State Public Services’ and ‘State Public Service Commission’ and that State Public Service Commission does not exist in NCTD, they differed on the issue of power to transfer and appoint certain officers.

 

 

Justice Sikri

 

Justice Bhushan

The transfers and postings of Secretaries, HODs and other officers in the scale of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and above can be done by the Lieutenant Governor and the file submitted to him directly. For other levels, including DANICS officers, the files can be routed through the Chief Minister to Lieutenant Governor. In case of difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister, the view of the Lieutenant Governor should prevail and the Ministry of Home Affairs can issue a suitable notification in this regard.

I having held that Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is not available to the Legislative Assembly of GNCTD, there is no occasion to exercise any Executive power with regard to “Services” by the GNCTD, since the Executive power of the GNCTD as per Article 239AA(4) extend in relation to matters with respect to which Legislative Assembly has power to make laws. With regard to “Services” GNCTD can exercise only those Executive powers, which can be exercised by it under any law framed by the Parliament or it may exercise those Executive powers, which have been delegated to it.

 

In the light of the aforementioned difference of opinion, a larger bench will be deciding the issue.

Concurrent opinions of the judges on other issues at a glance:

Setting up of Anti-Corruption Bureau Police Station

Centre

Setting up of Commission of Inquiry

Centre

Power to pass orders under Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2011 and Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Schemes) Rules, 2001 appointing the nominee Directors on the Board of Electricity Distribution Companies

GNCTD

Power to revise the minimum rates of Agricultural Land (Circle Rates) under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899

GNCTD

However, the LG is also empowered to form its opinion ‘on any matter’ which may be different from the decision taken by his Ministers. In such circumstances, LG is supposed to refer the matter to the President for decision and act according to the decision given thereon by the President.

Appointment of Public Prosecutors under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

GNCTD

 

Also read the related 5-judge Constitution Bench judgement that held that NCT of Delhi is not a State and Lt. Governor of Delhi is not an administrator.

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 193, decided on 14.02.2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and U.U. Lalit and K.M. Joseph, JJ. while hearing petitions concerning the “Rafale Fighter Jets” asked the  Centre to submit the pricing details for the same within a period of 10 days.

The Bench stated that “strategic and confidential” information need not be shared. Further, the Court in response to Attorney General K.K. Venugopal’s submission regarding “reservations about disclosing the details of pricing of the jets which were not disclosed even in Parliament”, said that “if pricing is something exclusive and you are not sharing it with us, please file an affidavit and say so.”

Further, the bench also stated that “What has been questioned is bonafide of the decision making process and price/cost at which the same is to be procured.”

Therefore, in the present order the bench has stated that further details that could legitimately come in the public domain with regard to the induction of the Indian offset partner (if any) be also furnished to the learned counsels for the parties, as well as ,
the petitioners in person.

Background:
In its earlier order Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1920:

The Court stated in categorical terms that “information which was sought would not cover the issue of pricing or the question of technical suitability of the equipment for purposes of the requirements of the Indian Air Force.” The requisite information was directed to be placed before the Court in three separate sealed covers on or before 29 October 2018, to be filed with the Secretary General of the Court.

The matter is further listed for 14-11-2018. [Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi,2018 SCC OnLine SC 2278, Order dated 31-10-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The notification proposing a social media hub that could act like a monitor regarding the online activities of the citizens has been turned down by Centre. The bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar and Dr DY Chandrachud was informed by AG KK Venugopal that the stated notification about “social media hub” was being withdrawn.

The move of creating a social media hub was leading towards the creation of a surveillance state. The petition concerning the same was file by TMC MLA Mahua Moitra in which she stated that the government had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP). The tender will be opened on August 20 for a software that would do 360-degree monitoring on all social media platforms.

Therefore, the bench had sought AG KK Venugopal’s assistance for the same in Mahua Moitra v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 697, for which today the Supreme Court was told that the notification is being withdrawn by the Centre.

[Source: PTI]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi and Navin Sinha JJ., expressed it’s wholly unsatisfactory view on the affidavit filed by Centre on 23-07-2018 in regard to appointment of Lokpal.

During the hearing, Attorney General K K Venugopal submitted an affidavit and stated that a meeting of the selection committee was held but the names for the search committee were not finalised.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Common Cause, said the Centre has not specified the date of the next meeting and they were actually delaying the appointment of a Lokpal despite passage of a law nearly five years ago.

In view of the dissatisfaction shown by the Supreme Court in regard to the affidavit filed, the Attorney General for India asked the Court to indicate the nature of the detailed particulars that are to be considered necessary to be incorporated in the affidavit to be filed. The matter to be listed in 4 weeks. [Common Cause v. Ajay Mittal, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 737, dated 24-07-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan JJ., expressed its disappointment in regard to non-compliance of its order given in Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 397, decided on 15-12-2017, which talked about disabled-friendly public institutions.

The bench stated that “We have not said anything new in our judgment of 15-12-2017. It was your (Centre) law and we just asked you to comply with it. We are not running the government. It’s you who has to follow the law and order.”

The Apex Court had issued an 11-pointer directive that included making public institutions, transport and educational institutions disabled friendly.

Further, in a fresh petition, the Supreme Court issued notices to the registrar generals of all High Courts and the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court in regard to making judiciary disabled-friendly.

Therefore, the Supreme Court giving due regard to its earlier directions in the above-mentioned case asked Centre to file an affidavit within a period of 4 weeks giving details of the steps taken so far and the timeline for completing the work as had been stated in Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 397.

[Source: PTI]