SC gives ACB to Centre, divided on bureaucrats
WHO RUNS DELHI? Agency can’t probe Centre’s employees, Kejriwal calls verdict ‘injustice’
NEW DELHI: The contentious debate over who controls Delhi administration officers – the elected Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government or the lieutenantgovernor (L-G) as the Centre’s representative – remained unanswered on Thursday even as the Supreme Court cleared the air on other executive powers that led to a bitter litigation between the two sides for almost four years.
In a setback to the Arvind Kejriwal government, a bench of two judges, justice AK Sikri and justice Ashok Bhushan, gave a split verdict on the issue of who can transfer Delhi government officers and referred the longpending dispute to a larger bench where arguments will have to be made afresh.
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi is likely to constitute a three-judge bench to hear the matter. The SC ruled against the Delhi government’s stand that its anti-corruption branch (ACB) can investigate corruption cases against central government employees and upheld a Union home ministry notification that put the unit under it.
The Centre, the court said, has not only the power to control the police force but solely exercises control over its supervision and functioning.
The two issues on which the court ruled in the Delhi government’s favour were on the appointment of special prosecutors for criminal cases, and for the fixing of electricity and land rates.
Kejriwal termed the verdict “unfortunate” and an “injustice to the people of Delhi”. At a press conference after the judgment, Kejriwal said it was ironic that as chief minister he does not have the power to appoint a peon in his own office.
“We have been suffering for the last four years. I and three of my cabinet colleagues had to do a 10-day hunger strike at the LG’S office to get files cleared. We cannot set up mohalla clinics because the elected government cannot appoint good officers or transfer inefficient ones. How can we set up schools or mohalla clinics if officers do not pick up calls of ministers? What sort of democracy is it?,” Kejriwal said.
On the ACB issue, he asked why the branch, which has been with the Delhi government for 40 years, is not under it now. “What do I do if someone comes to the CM to complain about a corrupt officer? Do I go to the Opposition? Do I urge the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to take action against the complainant? How can the elected government function only with the ministers,?” Kejriwal asked.
Accusing the Kejriwal government of deliberately creating confusion, the BJP said the Delhi government had functioned smoothly in the past when different parties were in power at the Centre and the state.
The BJP said Kejriwal’s statement was in contempt of court. “It is a contempt of court and deserves the most severe punishment. No chief minister has ever gone to the extent of condemning the judgment of the apex court of the country. The verdict is a legal as well as moral defeat of the AAP,” said Vijender Gupta, leader of the Opposition in the Delhi assembly.
On the all-important issue of services, justice Sikri held that the L-G has jurisdiction over officers of the rank of joint secretary and above, but for other levels, including DANICS officers (nonIAS, from the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service), the files can be routed through the chief minister to the L-G. In case of difference of opinion between the two, the L-G’S view should prevail and the home ministry can issue a suitable notification. For remaining officers, he said, transfer power is delegated to the state chief secretary and secretary (services). The judge suggested having a civil services board for DANICS and other category officers so that there is transparency in transfers and postings. But justice Bhushan said that with regard to “services”, the Delhi government cannot exercise any executive power, and can only enforce powers that are delegated to it under a law framed by the Parliament.
On the question of who is the appropriate authority under the law to constitute a Commission of Enquiry, the court ruled in favour of the Centre. With regard to appointment of special public prosecutors, the court held Delhi government has the jurisdiction to do so and L-G has no role to play. It added that the Kejriwal government is also empowered to issue directions to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) in matters of policies involving public interest. The power of Delhi government’s revenue department to revise the minimum rates of agricultural land (circle rates) under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, was upheld by the court, which said the L-G in such cases is bound to act as per the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
Former Delhi chief minister and Congress leader Sheila Dikshit said the national capital, being a Union Territory, does not enjoy “unlimited powers”. She advised the AAP government to resolve its differences with the authorities instead of taking them on.
Thursday’s verdict came after a Supreme Court Constitution Bench order last year that laid down broad contours of administrative jurisdiction. It came on nine cross appeals – seven by the Kejriwal government and two by the Centre – against a Delhi high court verdict on individual disputes that had cropped up between the two sides, leading to an intense power struggle.