The Delhi government recently received permission from the Supreme Court to alter the prior case it had filed to challenge the Delhi Services Act. This decree had given the Union government administrative oversight over the national capital. The measure, which the Parliament approved on August 8, replaced the ordinance. It was first published on May 19. As a result of this legislative move, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act underwent modifications. Ultimately, it will be giving the federal government administrative responsibility over the city.
The Supreme Court made its decision in response to a Constitution bench ruling. It recognized the Delhi government’s authority over bureaucrats working in its jurisdiction’s departments. However, in reaction to this, the Union government unveiled an order on May 19. It significantly revised the GNCTD Act, of 1991, restoring its control over “services” in the process. This decree further strengthened the Lieutenant Governor’s authority. It appoints them as the final arbiter of questions involving the posting and transfer of bureaucrats. The Centre established the National Capital Civil Service Authority (NCCSA) and a public service commission.
By adding a new chapter, Part IVA, to the GNCTD Act, the regulation of officer transfers and postings was effectively addressed.
Under the new legal framework, the NCCSA makes determinations regarding officer transfers and postings. Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal chairs the authority, which comprises two senior Delhi government bureaucrats. The final decision-making power rests with the Lieutenant Governor. The Delhi administration opposed the law, though, and a legal challenge claiming it violated democratic governance and the wishes of Delhi’s electorate resulted.
On June 30, the Delhi government filed a lawsuit, claiming that the ordinance violated the fundamental tenets of democratic administration. The act would be allowing the Union government to take control of the capital. The administration said that the law sought to overturn earlier constitutional bench rulings. The legal dispute was assigned to a five-judge Constitution panel on July 20. This action brought attention to the constitutional issues raised by the Union government’s authority to exercise executive control over services.