The rift between Delhi and the Centre has been perennial. This time it’s about the recently introduced ordinance by the Centre on May 19.
On May 13, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that Delhi’s elected government has control over the ‘services’ of the Union territory. However, this authority does not apply to those services that are related to public order, law enforcement, or land.
Unhappy with the judgment, the Centre said that the ruling by a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had the effect of designating Delhi as a “full-fledged State” whereas it is a Union Territory.
Interestingly, the Centre soon came up with an ordinance to counter the Supreme Court order. The ordinance intends to create a National Capital Civil Service Authority that will have the power to post and transfer officers. The National Capital Civil Service Authority will have the Chief Minister as its chairperson. However, in the event of a difference of opinion, the Lieutenant Governor will have the final say.
In the case of Delhi, in 2018, the Supreme Court observed that the Lieutenant Governor is obligated by the “aid and advice of the Kejriwal government, which has the public mandate”. It does not include public order, police, or land.
Several key aspects emerge from this situation. Firstly, the spotlight falls on the DC Wadhwa versus State of Bihar judgment, which cautioned against the misuse of ordinances for political purposes. Secondly, Opposition parties have come in support of AAP, most notably Mamata Banerjee. Lastly, the principle of federalism warrants discussion, emphasising the necessity of cooperative federalism. The positions of Governor or Lieutenant Governor should not fuel power struggles or generate conflicts between the Centre and the States.