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.”
The Supreme Court on Thursday Aug held that maternity benefits have to be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment Maternity benefits can travel beyond the term of contractual employment The court directed the...
Introduction In the intricate world of real estate consumers often find themselves entangled in a web of complexities that demand legal acumen and guidance As a solicitor passionate about serving my clients I feel compelled to shed light on the...
The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain a plea by 'Shri Krishna Janambhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust' seeking a survey of the Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque premises in Mathura to determine whether it was built on a pre-existing Hindu temple The apex...
The nbsp SC nbsp had held that nbsp UDF nbsp collected by the nbsp DIAL nbsp is in the nature of statutory levy and the same would not be taken as consideration against any services A recent judgment by the...
We recognize that the right to adopt is one of the most debated and sensitive issues for LGBTQ couples in India Despite increasing societal awareness and progressive judicial rulings the Indian legal framework still presents substantial challenges for LGBTQ individuals...
The Rajya Sabha has passed the Jammu and Kashmir The court underlined that Section treats women as properties of their husbands and is hence manifestly discriminatory It trashed the central government rsquo s defense of Section that it protects sanctity...