Services Ordinance Promulgated As Vigilance Dept Officers Were Targeted: Centre Tells SC

Services Ordinance Promulgated As Vigilance Dept Officers Were Targeted: Centre Tells SC

In a recent development, the Centre informed the Supreme Court that the ordinance pertaining to the control of services in Delhi was promulgated due to alleged targeting of officers in the vigilance department by the city government. The Centre’s affidavit, filed in the apex court, stated that after the constitution bench of the Supreme Court issued its judgment on May 11, ministers in the Delhi government initiated a “witch-hunt” and harassed officers in an attempt to influence their decision-making.

The affidavit submitted by the Centre suggests that the promulgation of the ordinance was a response to the perceived mistreatment of bureaucrats and officials by the Delhi government. The Centre’s claim is based on the assertion that officers working in the vigilance department were targeted and subjected to humiliation.

However, it is important to note that the specific details and incidents mentioned in the affidavit were not provided in the information available. The Centre’s submission to the Supreme Court presents its perspective on the rationale behind the ordinance and the alleged harassment of officers by the Delhi government.

This development underscores the ongoing tensions and disputes between the central and state governments regarding the control and administration of services in Delhi. The jurisdictional boundaries and distribution of powers between the two entities have been points of contention, leading to legal disputes and policy measures such as the promulgation of the ordinance.

The Supreme Court will likely evaluate the Centre’s affidavit and consider it in conjunction with the arguments put forth by the Delhi government. The court’s decision will be significant in determining the validity and impact of the ordinance, as well as addressing the concerns raised by both the Centre and the Delhi government regarding the functioning of the administrative machinery and the treatment of officers.

The Centre’s affidavit, submitted to the Supreme Court, elaborates on the circumstances leading to the promulgation of the ordinance on the control of services in Delhi. The affidavit states that officers working in the vigilance department, which handles vigilance issues including corruption complaints and politically sensitive cases, were specifically targeted by the elected government.

The affidavit aims to provide additional context and justification for the Centre’s decision to promulgate the ordinance. It asserts that the vigilance department, dealing with serious matters related to corruption, became the focus of attention and alleged mistreatment by the elected government.

The Centre’s affidavit comes in response to the earlier judgment by a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court on May 11. The court ruled that the Delhi government possesses legislative and executive powers over the administration of services, with exceptions related to public order, police, and land.

By highlighting the alleged targeting of officers in the vigilance department, the Centre seeks to justify its actions in promulgating the ordinance. The affidavit suggests that such targeting and harassment of officers led to a situation where their decision-making was influenced and compromised.

However, it is important to note that the specifics of the incidents or actions mentioned in the affidavit were not provided in the information available. The affidavit’s content presents the Centre’s perspective and arguments regarding the treatment of officers and the necessity of the ordinance.

The Supreme Court will consider the Centre’s affidavit, along with the earlier judgment and the arguments put forth by the Delhi government. The court’s ultimate decision will play a crucial role in determining the legality and implications of the ordinance, as well as addressing the concerns raised by both the Centre and the Delhi government regarding the functioning and administration of services in Delhi.

According to the Centre’s affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, complaints were received from the Special Secretary (Vigilance) and two other officers regarding a significant incident of trespassing. The complaint stated that there was an unauthorized entry into the Special Secretary’s chamber, and certain files were unlawfully taken into custody.

The affidavit implies that this incident played a role in shaping the Centre’s decision to promulgate the ordinance on the control of services in Delhi. The alleged trespassing and unauthorized custody of files were considered serious enough to warrant intervention and address concerns related to the functioning and autonomy of officers in the vigilance department.

However, the specific details surrounding the incident, including the nature of the files and the motives behind the unauthorized custody, were not provided in the available information. The affidavit’s mention of the incident aims to highlight the challenges faced by officers and the need for measures to ensure their protection and the smooth functioning of the administration.

The Supreme Court will examine the Centre’s affidavit, taking into account the arguments and counterarguments presented by both the Centre and the Delhi government. The court’s assessment will play a crucial role in determining the validity and implications of the ordinance and addressing the concerns raised by the parties involved regarding the functioning and treatment of officers in the administration of services in Delhi.

According to the mentioned affidavit, the Centre stated that the elected government displayed arrogance towards the duties of the concerned officers and handled the situation in a highly insensitive manner. The affidavit claimed that senior and subordinate officers in the vigilance department were repeatedly insulted and humiliated by the elected government.

The affidavit also highlighted the sensitivity of the files in the vigilance department. It stated that these files contained information regarding alleged excise scams, expenses related to the construction of the chief minister’s new residential bungalow, and documents pertaining to advertisements funded by the exchequer of the Delhi government for a political party. The sensitivity of these files emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of the vigilance department’s work.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, hinted at the possibility of referring the matter to a constitution bench for adjudication. This suggests that the court is considering the option of a larger bench to decide on the Delhi government’s petition against the Centre’s ordinance on the control of services.

Previously, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Centre and the lieutenant governor on the Delhi government’s plea, but it did not grant an interim stay on the ordinance. This indicates that the court is actively engaged in the matter and is deliberating on the appropriate course of action.

The Supreme Court’s contemplation of referring the case to a constitution bench underscores the complexity and significance of the issues at hand. A constitution bench, comprising multiple judges, would allow for a comprehensive examination of the constitutional and legal aspects related to the control of services in Delhi.

The Centre, on May 19, issued the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, which aimed to establish an authority for the transfer and posting of Group-A officers in Delhi. However, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government has criticized the ordinance, considering it a deviation from the Supreme Court’s verdict on the control of services.

The ordinance was promulgated one week after the Supreme Court ruled that the elected government in Delhi should have control over services, excluding police, public order, and land. The purpose of the ordinance is to establish the National Capital Civil Service Authority, which will oversee the transfer and disciplinary proceedings of Group-A officers from the DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli) cadre.

The AAP government has expressed disappointment with the ordinance, perceiving it as a contradiction to the Supreme Court’s judgment. The party believes that the ordinance undermines the authority granted to the elected government by the court regarding the control of services.

The establishment of the National Capital Civil Service Authority through the ordinance signifies a shift in the power dynamics between the central and state governments in Delhi. By creating a separate authority, the Centre seeks to assert control over the transfer and disciplinary proceedings of Group-A officers, which were previously entrusted to the elected government based on the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The interpretation and implementation of the ordinance will likely be subject to legal scrutiny and potential challenges. The Supreme Court’s verdict on the control of services in Delhi excluded certain areas from the elected government’s jurisdiction, and the ordinance’s provisions may be assessed for compatibility with the court’s ruling.

In conclusion, the Centre’s promulgation of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, seeks to establish an authority for the transfer and posting of Group-A officers in Delhi. However, the AAP government views the ordinance as a deviation from the Supreme Court’s verdict on the control of services. The ordinance’s provisions, particularly the establishment of the National Capital Civil Service Authority, signify a change in the power dynamics and may face legal scrutiny regarding their alignment with the court’s ruling.

According to the information provided, the National Capital Civil Service Authority, established through the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, consists of three members: the Chief Minister and two bureaucrats. The decisions of the Authority are made by a majority vote. In case of a dispute, the matter will be referred to the Lieutenant Governor (LG), whose decision will be final.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s verdict on May 11, the transfer and posting of all officers of the Delhi government were under the executive control of the LG. However, the court’s ruling altered the power dynamics by granting control of services to the elected government, with certain exceptions.

In its affidavit filed with the apex court, the Centre asserts that the ordinance aligns with the existing constitutional scheme of governance for the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, as provided under Article 239 read with 239AA of the Constitution. The Centre argues that the ordinance is in accordance with the principles and framework established by the Constitution.

The Centre further explains the rationale behind the promulgation of the ordinance, stating that immediately after the Supreme Court’s May 11 judgment, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal met with the Lieutenant Governor, who emphasized the sanctity of the verdict and the need to follow it strictly.

The Centre’s affidavit provides additional context and justifications for the promulgation of the ordinance, aiming to demonstrate its compliance with the constitutional provisions and the understanding between the Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Governor following the court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court will consider the Centre’s affidavit, taking into account the arguments and counterarguments presented by both the Centre and the Delhi government. The court’s decision will be crucial in determining the validity and implications of the ordinance, considering its compatibility with the constitutional framework and the court’s previous ruling.

According to the Centre’s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the chief minister and other ministers allegedly engaged in a dramatic and convoluted manner by issuing orders and publicizing them on social media. These actions were said to be in gross disregard for the existing rules and procedures governing the administrative mechanisms of the civil service board.

The affidavit further claimed that the ministers uploaded these orders on social media platforms and made statements in the media, initiating what was described as a “witch-hunt” and harassment of officers. It alleged that there were media trials, threats, and street demonstrations aimed at influencing the decision-making process of the officers.

The Centre’s affidavit emphasizes that these alleged actions by the ministers were disruptive and in violation of established protocols and norms. It suggests that the ordinance was necessitated to address such behavior and ensure the smooth functioning of the administrative system.

However, it is important to note that the specific details and incidents mentioned in the affidavit were not provided in the available information. The affidavit presents the Centre’s perspective on the conduct of the ministers and their alleged impact on the decision-making processes within the civil service.

The Supreme Court will consider the Centre’s affidavit along with the arguments presented by the Delhi government and other stakeholders. The court’s examination and judgment will play a vital role in determining the validity of the ordinance and addressing the concerns raised by both parties regarding the functioning and conduct of officers in the administrative system of Delhi.