The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn a PIL challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023.
At the outset, the Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that after perusing the papers, it has come to the conclusion that infrastructural costs were involved in the matter.
While questioning the locus of the petitioner appearing in person, the Apex Court expressed its inclination to impose costs.
The petitioner then requested the Bench to tag his plea with the petition filed by Delhi government against the ordinance.
After the top court of the country refused to allow the same, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea, which was granted.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn a PIL challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023.
Notably, the ordinance is said to “wrest” control over civil servants from the Delhi government to the Lieutenant Governor.
At the outset, the Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that after perusing the papers, it has come to the conclusion that infrastructural costs were involved in the matter.
While questioning the locus of the petitioner appearing in person, the Apex Court expressed its inclination to impose costs.
The petitioner then requested the Bench to tag his plea with the petition filed by Delhi government against the ordinance.
After the top court of the country refused to allow the same, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea, which was granted.
Earlier on July 20, the top court of the country had referred to a five-Judge Constitution Bench, the two petitions filed by the Delhi government against the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, which gave the power to exercise control over civil servants in Delhi to the Lieutenant Governor.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra indicated that it would propose the name of a pro tem chairperson for the appointment on an ad-hoc basis till the petition was decided.
Appearing for Delhi LG Vinai Kumar Saxena, Senior Advocate Harish Salve contended that it would be improper for the Delhi government to send a list of names.
Representing the Delhi government, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi said a similar argument would apply, in case the LG sent any list.
Opposing the ordinance case being referred to a Constitution Bench, Singhvi said the matter could be heard by a three-judge Bench.
He further alleged that the Delhi government’s orders were not being heeded to by the bureaucrats working in the national capital.
As per the Senior Advocate, no bureaucrat was taking orders by the Delhi government. Noting that the LG had fired 437 consultants, Singhvi asked as to how the Governor got the power under the ordinance to remove the consultants.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani said that the decision to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench was to be taken by the Apex Court.
Senior Advocate Salve responded by saying that the consultant appointments were illegal.