The bill that was set to replace the Delhi Services Ordinance has come up with major changes including a contentious provision that was apparently inserted to overcome the effect of the May 11, 2023 judgment of the Supreme Court.
The judgement will take away the power of the Delhi government, for changing the manner in which tribunals’ heads are to be appointed in the national capital.
The National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023 was introduced in Lok Sabha today by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who has dropped Section 3A of the May 19 ordinance, placed in to take “services” out of the purview of the elected government in Delhi.
As per Section 3A, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order or decree of any Court, the Legislative Assembly shall have the power to make laws as per Article 239AA except with respect to any matter enumerated in Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India or any matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The representatives of the Delhi government have not given comment on these observations.
Earlier on July 20, the Supreme Court had referred to a five-Judge Constitution Bench, the two petitions filed by the Delhi government against the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, which gave the power to exercise control over civil servants in Delhi to the Lieutenant Governor.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra said the order in this regard would be uploaded on the website of the Apex Court by this evening.
During the course of hearing, the Apex Court listed the matter related to the appointment of DERC Chairman for hearing on August 4.
The Bench indicated that it would propose the name of a protem chairperson for the appointment on an ad-hoc basis till the petition was decided.
Appearing for Delhi LG Vinai Kumar Saxena, Senior Advocate Harish Salve contended that it would be improper for the Delhi government to send a list of names.
Representing the Delhi government, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi said a similar argument would apply, in case the LG sent any list.
Opposing the ordinance case being referred to a Constitution Bench, Singhvi said the matter could be heard by a three-judge Bench.
He further alleged that the Delhi government’s orders were not being heeded to by the bureaucrats working in the national capital.
As per the Senior Advocate, no bureaucrat was taking orders by the Delhi government. Noting that the LG had fired 437 consultants, Singhvi asked as to how the Governor got the power under the ordinance to remove the consultants.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani said that the decision to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench was to be taken by the Apex Court.
Senior Advocate Salve responded by saying that the consultant appointments were illegal.
Rejecting Singhvi’s request to hear the matter before the hearing on plea challenging the abrogation of Article 370, which was scheduled for the first week of August, the Apex Court referred the matter for hearing to a Constitution Bench.