Explained | The administrative services row between the Delhi and Central governments

The current dispute over the control of services is part of a long-standing power spat between the Arvind Kejriwal government and the Central government. 

The story so far: On Friday May 4, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana referred the dispute between the Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government and the Centre over who controls the Capital’s bureaucracy to a five-judge Constitution Bench to give an “authoritative pronouncement” on the matter.

The apex court listed the matter for hearing by the Constitution Bench on May 11, adding it must be concluded before May 15, allowing for a judgement to be prepared during the Court’s summer vacations beginning May 23.

The Delhi government has argued in the Supreme Court against its exclusion from exercising control over administrative services like the IAS in the nation’s capital. These services are currently controlled by the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) of the Union Territory appointed by the Centre.

The question of who controls services was left undecided by a two-judge Bench of the apex court in 2019, which gave a split verdict and referred the matter to a three-judge Bench. As per a 2016 judgement of the Delhi High Court, however, control of ‘services’ is not under the ambit of the Kejriwal government, known as the National Capital Territory (NCT) government.

The NCT government told the current Bench led by the CJI that its predicament without power over the ‘services’ was like that of a “king without a kingdom”. The situation is such that a “democratic representative government” had to get the approval of the L-G to appoint a Health Secretary or a Commerce Secretary, it argued.

The Centre, on the other hand, argued in the Court on April 27 that the nation’s capital, which was the “face of the nation” and “a sprawling metropolis”, should be under its control. It contended that Delhi could not be left to the “small mercies and smaller resources” of a State legislature.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted in the Supreme Court that the matter of ‘services’ should be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench as it involved a substantial question of interpretation of the law. This submission was strongly opposed by the Delhi government.