Headlines
Home ministry notification: SC notice to Delhi government
New Delhi, May 29
In a small advantage to the
central government, the Supreme Court on Friday described as "tentative"
Delhi High Court's observation that its May 21 order giving Delhi's lt.
governor the final say in posting and transfers of bureaucrats was
"suspect", even as it issued notice to the city government on the issue.
The
vacation bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and Uday Umesh Lalit issued the
notice on a central government petition seeking stay of observations
made by the high court in three paragraphs of its May 25 judgement
wherein it had said that notification was "suspect" and that the Delhi's
Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) had the jurisdiction to entertain
complaint and act against Delhi police officers under the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
While terming the observation in paragraph 66 of
the high court judgement holding notification "suspect" as "tentative",
the apex court said that in respect of other paragraphs, it will take a
call only after receiving reply from the Delhi government.
It
further said that the high court, while deciding Delhi government's writ
petition challenging the May 21 notification, will decide the same
"independently" without being influenced by the observations contained
in the high court's May 25 judgement which was sought to be stayed by
the central government in their plea before the apex court.
At
the outset of the hearing as Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar raised the
issue of observations it sought to be stayed, senior counsel Parag
Tripathi, appearing for Delhi government, said that the high court had
itself said that it was not going the larger issue of the jurisdiction
of the ACB and only deciding the bail application by Delhi Police head
constable Anil Kumar.
The court told Tripathi that Delhi
government could not read this para of high court verdict before it and
read other paras containing observations before the high court in its
attempt to nail the May 21 notification.
"The court has to take a
call. Do you want us (apex court) to decide or the high court to
decide," the court said as it issued notice to Delhi.
The
observations in three paragraphs that the central government wanted to
be stayed relate to the high court observing that the central government
could not have issued July 23, 2014, notification restricting Delhi
government to proceed against its own officials only under the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
It had further said that central
government could not have exercised its executive powers to impose
sanction on the matters falling in the legislative domain of Delhi
assembly as the GNCTD Act read with article 239 AA of the constitution
put fetters on the executive authority of the president.
The
other observation that troubled the central government was the court
holding "suspect" the May 21 notification by which the ACB was excluded
from taking "any cognizance of the offences against officers, employees
and functionaries of the central government".
It was further
discomfited by the high court holding that the ACB has the jurisdiction
to entertain and act on a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption
Act in respect of a Delhi Police officer or official, and to investigate
and prosecute the crime, which broadly meant that the ACB could act
against any central government official working under it.
The
central government has contested the high court verdict on 10 counts of
law including that it could not have rendered adverse finding of May 21
notification being "suspect" without giving it an opportunity of stating
its position on the issue.
It also assailed the high court
judgment saying that the court was wrong in holding that there were "no
fetters" on the Delhi assembly's legislative powers for enacting laws on
subjects in the concurrent list.
"The constitutional status of
the NCTD is not the same as that of a state; it is a centrally-
administered territory of the union" and its "legislative and executive
powers are restricted constitutionally," it contended.