The Supreme Court has said a five-judge constitution bench will examine whether Parliament can “abrogate the constitutional principles of governance” for the Delhi government by making a law to take away its control over services. The Centre recently issued an ordinance on the Delhi services matter by exercising its powers under Article 239-AA, a special provision in the Constitution pertaining to the national capital.
The top court, which on Thursday referred to a constitution bench the :
(i) What are the contours of the power of Parliament to enact a law under Article 239-AA(7); and (ii) Whether Parliament in the exercise of its power under Article 239-AA(7) can abrogate the constitutional principles of governance for the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD),” said the order passed by a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra.
“The first is on the import of Section 3A (of the ordinance). Section 3A removes Entry 41 (services) of List II (State List) from the legislative competence of the NCTD. On the exclusion of Entry 41 from the NCTD’s legislative power, the government of the NCTD ceases to have executive power over services because executive power is co-terminus with the legislative power,” the order said.
While referring the Delhi government’s plea to the constitution bench, it had rejected the vehement submission of the city dispensation that there was no need for referring the matter to a constitution bench as it will “paralyse the whole system” during its pendency.
On Thursday, the bench raised a raised a query with regard to the ordinance and said it took away the control of services from the control of the Delhi government.
The Constitution excludes three entries of List II (State List) related to police, law and order and land from the control of the Delhi government, it said.
Article 239AA deals with special provisions with respect to Delhi in the Constitution and its sub-article 7 says, “Parliament may, by law, make provisions for giving effect to, or supplementing the provisions contained in the foregoing clauses and for all matters incidental or consequential thereto.”
It also says any such law made under the article “shall not be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of Article 368 notwithstanding that it contains any provision which amends or has the effect of amending, this Constitution.”
Why Smart Businesses Invest in Legal Clarity Before Signing, Not After a Dispute Begins In business, partnerships are built on trust.Transactions are built on opportunity.But when disputes arise, courts do not interpret trust—they interpret documents. One poorly drafted agreement, one ...
The Supreme Court on Monday(September 25) refused to interfere with the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court allowing the University of Delhi to admit students in the 5 year LL.B course of its Faculty of Law on the ...
The Supreme Court, while granting custody of a minor child to the her aunt despite opposition from the father, held that the personal law or statute couldn't override the welfare of the child while deciding the custody of the child. ...
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud announced today that the Supreme Court is officially 'onboard' with the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) now. The CJI described the onboarding of the Supreme Court data on NJDG portal under the court's 'open ...
After opposition walked out over their demands for discussion on Manipur Violence, the Rajya Sabha passed the contentious Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 today. It aims to amend certain provisions under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to extend and exempt ...
The CJI said the law didn't preclude unmarried couples from adopting.Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while announcing his verdict on a clutch of petitions demanding legal status to same-sex marriages, today struck down the Central Adoption Resource Authority's (CARA) ...