Why in News:SC referred Delhi-Centre dispute over control of services to five-judge Constitution bench
Background
The proceedings have their genesis in the Delhi High Court judgment of 2017, whereby it held that for the purposes of administration of the NCT of Delhi, the L-G was not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in every matter.
On appeal, the SC in 2017 referred the matter to decide on the interpretation of Article 239AA.
By a majority decision in 2018, the Constitution bench upheld the respective powers of the state Assembly and the Parliament.
It said that while the council of ministers must communicate all decisions to the L-G, this does not mean that the latter’s concurrence is required. In case of a difference of opinion, the L-G can refer it to the President for a decision.
The L-G has no independent decision-making power but has to either act on the ‘aid and advice’ of the Council of Ministers or is bound to implement the decision of the President on a reference being made
Thus the bench limited itself to the interpretation of Article 239AA, left individual issues to be decided by regular benches
In 2019 two judge benches upheld two notifications issued by the Centre which had the effect of excluding the jurisdiction of the Delhi government’s Anti-Corruption Branch from probing offences committed by the central government officials and limiting it to employees of the Delhi government.
However, the judges, differed on who should have control over administrative services
This was challenged again in the SC where the Centre contended that the two judges could not take a decision on the question as the 2018 Constitution bench judgment had not interpreted the expression “insofar as any such matter as applicable to Union Territories” appearing in Article 239AA. Thus prompting SC to refer the issue to larger constitutional bench
Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Q.1) Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice?
