The issue of control over "services" remains an issue of contention between the Centre and the Delhi government.
The Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on Thursday on a batch of petitions challenging various notifications including on control of services and power of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in the ongoing tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre.
A bench of justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan had on November 1 last year reserved its verdict on the petitions challenging the notifications issued by the Centre and the Delhi government.
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had been at loggerheads with incumbent Lieutenant Governor (LG) Anil Baijal and his predecessor Najeeb Jung over the power structure in the capital city. Kejriwal had accused both of them of preventing the functioning of his government at the behest of the BJP-led central government.
In a verdict in July last year, the Supreme Court held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a state but clipped the powers of the LG. However, the issue of control over "services" remained an issue of contention between the LG and the Delhi government.
Here are live updates on Supreme Court verdict:
* Summary of SC verdict-
Electricity Reforms Act, power to appoint Special Public Prosecutor - To Delhi Government
Commission of Enquiry Act, Anti-Corruption - To Central Government
Revision of land revenue or circle rates - Delhi govt can decide but needs the concurrence of LG who cannot sit on the files but can refer to the President.
Services - Matter referred to a larger bench
* The jurisdiction of ACB as laid down by the Delhi High Court has been upheld by the SC.
* The two-judge bench differ on services matter. The matter goes to larger bench on this issue.
* The court holds unanimously that the Delhi govt can not set up anti corruption bureau to probe against central govt employees.
* There is a difference of opinion among judges on who has authority over services.
* SC bench agrees on these matters - Delhi govt cannot form a Commission of Enquiry. Electricity reforms, revision of minimum rates of agri land and power to appoint Special Public prosecutor comes under Delhi govt's domain.
* Justice AK Sikri holds transfers of posting of Joint Secretary and above officers are in the domain of LG while other officers fall under Delhi govt, however, in case of difference of opinion, view of LG to prevail. Anti Corruption Bureau to come under LG: ANI reports
* SC upholds Centre's power on ACB that it cannot take cognizance of offences against Central Govt officers
* On transfer of bureaucrats, Justice Sikri holds that certain grade officers will fall under LG while others will fall under NCT of Delhi.
* Justice AK Sikri says there is a difference of opinion on certain aspects between the two judges on the Bench.
1. Centre's argument
)
During the hearings, the Centre had told the apex court that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) has the power to regulate services in Delhi.
The powers are delegated to the administrator of Delhi and the services can be administered through him, it had said.
The Centre also said that unless the President of India expressly directs, the LG, who is the administrator of Delhi, cannot consult the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers.
2. Delhi government's stand
)
On October 4, last year, the Delhi government had told the apex court that it wanted its petitions relating to governance of the national capital be heard soon as it did not want "stalemate to continue in administration".
The Delhi government had told the top court that it wanted to know where it stands with regard to the administration in view of the Constitution bench verdict of apex court on July 4.
3. Five-judge bench verdict
)
The five-judge bench had on July 4, last year laid down broad parameters for governance of the national capital, which has witnessed a power struggle between the Centre and the Delhi government since the Aam Aadmi Party came to power in 2014.
In the landmark verdict, it had unanimously held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a state but clipped the powers of the Lieutenant Governor (LG), saying he has no "independent decision making power" and has to act on the aid and advice of the elected government.
4. Why Centre wants more power
)
On September 19, last year, the Centre had told the apex court that administration of Delhi cannot be left to the Delhi government alone and emphasised that it has an "extraordinary" position by virtue of being the country's capital.
The Centre had told court that a five-judge constitution bench of the apex court had categorically held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a state.
The Centre had contended that one of the basic issues was that whether the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) has the legislative and executive powers so far as 'services' were concerned.
"Delhi has an extraordinary position as it is the capital of the country," it had said.
It said that the national capital houses several institutions of vital importance like Parliament and the Supreme Court and foreign diplomats also resides here.
5. Centre vs AAP Govt: Chronology of events
)
The Delhi government vs Centre tussle had started with lodging of an FIR in 2014 by the then Arvind Kejriwal regime against Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), Mukesh Ambani and others including UPA ministers M Veerappa Moily and Murli Deora (since dead), accusing them of "fixing" gas prices.
6. Centre vs Delhi: 2014-15
)
*May 2, 2014: RIL moves HC for quashing of FIR and challenging a 1993 notification of the Centre giving power to Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to probe union government employees.
*May 8: Centre moves HC opposing FIR against the ministers contending that ACB has no powers or jurisdiction to probe.
*May 9: HC issues notice to Delhi government on the plea to quash FIR against the ministers. HC allowed ACB to continue with its probe.
*May 20: HC asks Centre, RIL to cooperate with ACB probe.
*Aug 9: ACB tells HC that it has powers to lodge FIR in gas pricing case.
*Aug 19: ACB tells HC it cannot probe the gas pricing case against RIL and a former UPA minister as a July 23, 2014 notification of Centre has taken away its jurisdiction to investigate central government employees.
*Oct 16: Delhi government tells HC its ACB can prosecute RIL and ministers.
*Oct 28: HC gives time to Centre to clarify on ACB's powers.
*Dec 4 : RIL argues in HC that State probing Centre's decision on gas pricing is absurd.
*May 25, 2015: HC says ACB has jurisdiction to arrest policemen who come under Centre. It says the Centre's May 21 notification limiting ACB's powers was "suspect".
*May 26: PIL in HC against Centre's May 21 notification giving powers to LG to appoint bureaucrats in Delhi.
*May 28: Delhi government moves HC on Centre's notification on LG's powers. Centre moves SC against HC's May 25 order terming as "suspect" its notification.
*May 29: HC asks LG to consider Delhi government's proposals on shifting of nine bureaucrats from one post to another.
*Jun 10: HC refuses to stay MHA notification on ACB power.
*Jun 27: Delhi government moves HC to restrain LG appointee ACB chief M K Meena from entering anti-graft body's office.
7. Arvind Kejriwal vs Najeeb Jung: 2016-17
)
*Jan 27, 2016: Union government tells HC that Delhi is under Centre's control and not full-fledged state.
*Apr 5: AAP government asks HC to refer to larger bench petitions on powers of LG on the governance of Delhi.
*Apr 6: Delhi government tells HC it was competent to set up a commission to probe allegations of corruption in awarding licence to conduct CNG fitness tests.
*Apr 19: AAP government withdraws from SC its plea seeking setting up of a larger bench in HC.
*May 24: HC reserves order on AAP government's plea for a stay on proceedings on the petitions arising out of its stand-off with LG over powers to appoint bureaucrats in the national capital and other issues.
*May 30: HC turns down AAP government's request to first decide its stay application.
* Jul 1: SC agrees to hear AAP government's plea seeking a direction that HC be restrained from delivering judgement on issues, including the scope of powers of the city government to exercise its authority in performing public functions.
* Jul 4: Justice J S Khehar of SC recuses from hearing AAP govt's plea on declaration of powers of Delhi as a state.
* Jul 5: Justice L Nageshwar Rao of SC also recuses from hearing Delhi government's plea.
* Jul 8: SC refuses to entertain Delhi government plea to first decide the preliminary issue as to whether it has the jurisdiction over disputes between the Centre and the state or is it "exclusively" triable by the apex court.
* Aug 4: HC says LG is administrative head of National Capital Territory and AAP government's contention that he is bound to act on the advice of Council of Ministers was "without substance".
* Feb 15, 2017: SC refers to constitution bench the pleas on Delhi-Centre row over governance.
* Nov 2: Constitution bench of SC commences hearing.
* Nov 8: SC observes that responsibilities conferred upon LG are not absolute.
* Nov 14: SC raises a question if constitutional scheme on division of executive powers between the Centre and the states can be made applicable to the union territory of Delhi.
* Nov 21: Centre opposes AAP government's submissions in the SC, says Delhi has been accorded "special status" among union territories but that does not make it a state.
* Dec 6 : SC reserves judgement on a batch of pleas on Delhi-Centre power tussle after hearing arguments for 15 days.
8. Kejriwal vs Baijal: 2018-19
)
* Jul 4, 2018: SC says LG does not have independent decision making powers, and is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
* July 18: The AAP government tells the Supreme Court that its functioning was "completely paralysed" and it cannot order transfer or posting of officers despite the constitution bench verdict on the national capital's administration.
* September 19, 2018: Centre tells the apex court that administration of Delhi cannot be left to the Delhi government alone and emphasised that it has an "extraordinary" position by virtue of being the country's capital.
* October 4, Delhi government tells the top court that it wanted its petitions relating to governance of the national capital be heard soon as it did not want "stalemate to continue in administration".
* February 14, 2019: Supreme Court announces its verdict.
