Delhi vs Centre: Supreme Court stays filing of petition, constitution bench to hear on November 24
The Supreme Court has stayed the filing of any kind of petition in the matter related to the dispute of services between the Delhi Government and the Central Government.
Time to Read 2 Min
Delhi Government vs Centre: The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in the Delhi Government vs Central Government case. The Supreme Court has refused to seek a reply from the Center on the affidavit of Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia. The Supreme Court has stayed the filing of any kind of petition in the matter related to the dispute of services in the Delhi Government and the Central Government.
Affidavit filed by Delhi Government: It is worth mentioning that earlier, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of Delhi Government had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court. He told that Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia has filed an affidavit to show paralysis in the administration. But the Supreme Court stayed the filing of any kind of affidavit.
What the Supreme Court said:
On the affidavit filed regarding the dispute of services in the Delhi government and the central government, the Supreme Court said that the court will not get into such a dispute. The court will decide the constitutional issue only on the dispute of services between Delhi and the Center before the Constitution Bench. The court said that the matter will now be heard on November 24.
Significantly, earlier in the year 2019, a bench of then Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan had heard the issue of control over administrative services. In his judgment, Justice Sikri had said that the transfer-posting of office bearers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above are subject to the powers of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. Whereas, other officers are under the control of Delhi government. But Justice Bhushan's decision was different. He had said that the administrative services are completely outside the purview of the Delhi government. However, it was considered an incomplete decision, after which it was sent to a three-member bench.

