In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court granted the Union Government the authority to prolong the term of Delhi’s Chief Secretary, Naresh Kumar, by an additional six months. This decision, which defies the imminent retirement of Kumar, underscores the court’s affirmation of the Central Government’s power to appoint the Chief Secretary for the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD).
The judicial pronouncement, rendered on November 29, dismissed the Delhi Government’s plea to prevent the Union from extending Kumar’s tenure, emphasizing the constitutional authority bestowed upon the Centre in matters of GNCTD services. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, underscored the relevance of the recent legislative amendment, the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2023, which grants overriding powers to the Centre.
The court elucidated its position, acknowledging the Constitutionally excluded domains of public order, police, and land from the purview of the Delhi Government. Chief Justice Chandrachud underscored the Chief Secretary’s responsibility in dealing with these matters, dismissing arguments for bifurcation.
Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the GNCTD, contended that the Chief Secretary’s functions within the Delhi Government’s exclusive domain warranted consultation. However, the bench rejected this notion, highlighting the Chief Secretary’s pivotal role in handling matters beyond the GNCTD’s purview.
Singhvi questioned the Centre’s authority to extend the term of a Chief Secretary, raising concerns about confidence in the appointed official. Chief Justice Chandrachud countered by noting the unprecedented nature of such an extension and the historical consultation process between the Centre and State Government.
As a compromise, Singhvi proposed joint deliberations between the Chief Minister, Lieutenant Governor, and suggested candidates, yet the bench remained resolute on the Centre’s prerogative.
The Court’s ruling leaned on Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Rules 1968, citing the State Government’s recommendation and Central Government’s approval for extending a Chief Secretary’s term. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that, in the context of AGMUT cadre officers, the State Government should be interpreted as the Central Government.
The judgment, while acknowledging the Constitutional exclusion of certain subjects, asserted that the Chief Secretary’s role is indivisible and integral to the administration. The bench concluded that, at this stage, the Union Government’s decision to extend the Chief Secretary’s tenure does not violate the law, pending further adjudication by the Constitution Bench.
