The Central government defended the Delhi Services Ordinance before the Supreme Court, stating that it was necessary to address the Delhi government's actions that were allegedly paralyzing the capital and harassing officers. According to the affidavit filed by the Union Home Ministry, the Vigilance Department's files, including those related to the Excise Policy case, Arvind Kejriwal's new bungalow, the probe into Delhi Government ads, and Delhi's power subsidy, were unlawfully seized by the ministers of the Delhi Government. The ministry criticized the behavior of Delhi government officials, describing it as arrogant and insensitive.
The affidavit also mentioned that despite the apex court's judgment granting control over all services in the national capital to the Delhi government, the turmoil continued as the government issued various directions through social media. To prevent the situation from worsening, the Central government decided not to wait for the Monsoon Session of Parliament and instead enacted the ordinance.
The ministry argued that the Court's interference was unwarranted, citing Article 239AA(3)(b) of the Constitution, which explicitly states that parliament's powers to make laws regarding a Union territory are not undermined. They also pointed out that Article 239AA(7) empowers parliament to enact laws to enforce or supplement the provisions outlined in Article 239AA. Additionally, the ministry claimed that Article 246(4) of the Constitution allows parliament to legislate on matters concerning any part of India's territory not covered by a State, even if it falls under the State list of the Constitution. Thus, they contended that parliament has the authority to enact laws, including those on subjects typically under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi.
The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi also filed a reply supporting the ordinance, arguing that the Government of Delhi had no violation of fundamental rights and that there were no issues regarding the promulgation of the ordinance or non-compliance with constitutional provisions. They stated that the arguments against the ordinance were politically motivated rather than based on legal and constitutional grounds. Both replies emphasized that staying the ordinance, which is yet to be tested in parliament, would cause irreparable harm to the administration of GNCTD (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi).
TAGS: Central government Supreme Court Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance Delhi Services Ordinance control over civil servants Union Home Ministry affidavit Vigilance Department Excise Policy case Arvind Kejriwal's bungalow Delhi Government ads power subsidy Delhi government officials apex court's judgment Monsoon Session of Parliament Article 239AA(3)(b) Article 239AA(7) Article 246(4) Legislative Assembly of Delhi Lieutenant Governor fundamental rights promulgation of the ordinance non-compliance political grounds legal grounds constitutional grounds National Capital Territory staying the ordinance irreparable harm.
