New Delhi, Aug 22 : Chief Justice of India, N.V.Ramana on Monday announced that a bench headed by Justice D.Y.Chandrachud has been set up to hear the case relating to the dispute between Delhi and Central authorities in connection with the administration of services in the capital.As counsel Shadan Farasat spoke about the matter to an apex court headed by the Chief Justice, he stated that he had formed an unofficial bench headed by Justice Chandrachud.
On May 6 on May 6, the Supreme Court referred to a Constitution bench the power tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government, in connection with control over administrative services.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the issue is not a matter of services, and will be decided by the constitution bench.
In the year 2018 a constitutional bench declared that land, police and public order fall within the purview of the Centre and the rest falls subject to the Delhi government.
The Centre had filed an application to send the matter to a Constitution bench for a comprehensive definition of the Article 239AA of the Constitution.
“The applicant claims that the issues raise an important question of law that requires the an interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution and the most important issues in the present case cannot be resolved unless it is resolved by a Constitution bench in the spirit of Article 145 (3) of the Constitution,” said its application.
Senior attorney Abhishek Manu Singhvi who represents the Delhi government, then stated that after a constitution bench makes a decision on the issue, there is no reason in returning to it.
He insists that any minor issue raised could not be referred to a larger bench.The Supreme Court stated the issue is that there are two sections of the constitution’s provision and the issue is when they are referring to a provision , but there isn’t a conclusive conclusion.in the case of that, it is necessary to refer the issue to a bigger bench.
Singhvi said that it is not required to refer the matter to a bigger bench and that the current three-judge bench could also decide the issue.When the bench asked, “What prejudice will be caused by referring the matter? “, he said the question was why it should be sent.
Singhvi said that a constitution bench reference from a constitution bench that is not common, but added: “I am not disputing the authority of your lordships to refer to it.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that there was a finding that there had been no consideration, and judges requested that the case be sent to a referring court.he demanded that the case must be referred to an even larger bench.
The 28th of April following an extensive hearing in the case the supreme court reserved its verdict on the plea of the Centre to submit the matter with the Delhi government – over the transfer and posting of officials in the capital city of the nation to a five-judge constitutional bench.
ss/vd
