SC delivers split verdict on control of services

The judgment is against Constitution and democracy. We will seek legal remedies... if a govt can’t transfer officers, how will it function.

ARVIND KEJRIWAL, Delhi CM Kejriwal’s remarks about the judgment) are the biggest attack on the apex court in political history... He has declared war on our highest court. SAMBIT PATRA, BJP spokesperson

NEWDELHI: In a setback for the AAP government in Delhi, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday gave a split verdict on the contentious issue of who should control administrative services but appeared to agree that the Centre has the final word.

In view of the differences, justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan referred the matter to a larger bench of the apex court.

Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, whose Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has been accusing the Centre of appointing officers who create hurdles in the works of the AAP government, termed the verdict as “unfortunate” and said it was ironic that a chief minister can’t have power to appoint even a peon in his office.

The two judges, who were hearing pleas on six matters pertaining to a long-running conflict between the Narendra Modi gov- ernment at the Centre and the AAP government in the national capital, gave a unanimous order on the remaining five issues.

Both judges agreed that the lieutenant governor (L-G) will have control over the Anti-corruption Bureau, as already notified by the Centre, and the power to appoint inquiry commissions would also rest with the central government.

The Delhi government, on the other hand, will have the right to appoint public prosecutors, to decide land revenue matters and also to appoint or deal with electricity commission or board.

On the most contentious issue where the verdict was divided, justice Bhushan ruled the Delhi government has no power at all over administrative services.

Justice Sikri, however, made a distinction by saying the transfer or posting of senior officers (joint director and above) can only be done by the Centre and the view of L-G would prevail in case of difference of opinion for matters relating other bureaucrats.