Chief Secretary must follow Delhi govt’s directions: Supreme Court

New Delhi: In a recent legal showdown between the Delhi government and the Centre, the Supreme Court delivered a verdict affirming the Centre’s unilateral power to appoint the chief secretary for Delhi under the 2023 law on the administration of the capital.

The court emphasised that while the Centre has the authority to make such appointments, the chief secretary “must” comply with the directions of the elected government on matters within its executive competence.

The ruling, issued on Thursday, drew attention to the critical role of the chief secretary, citing a 1974 judgment and stating, “The post of the chief secretary is a ‘post of great confidence, a lynchpin in the administration.’”

The court underlined the unique position of Delhi’s chief secretary, who performs functions within and outside the executive competence of the elected government.

The judgment echoed previous Constitution bench decisions in 2018 and 2023, asserting that the Delhi government holds exclusive legislative and executive powers, except in specific areas controlled by the Centre. However, a May 2023 judgment granting control over bureaucrats to the Delhi government prompted a swift response from the Centre, which issued an ordinance nullifying the ruling.

Amid ongoing legal battles, a five-judge Constitution bench is set to decide the constitutional validity of the 2023 ordinance, which grants the Centre executive power over ‘services.’ The court has declined the Delhi government’s plea to stay the ordinance, now enacted as law.

The latest dispute revolves around the appointment of Delhi’s new chief secretary. The Delhi government insisted on having a say in the selection, while the Centre extended the tenure of the incumbent chief secretary Naresh Kumar, for another six months, citing powers under the new law.

The Supreme Court, ruling in favor of the Centre on November 29, clarified, “The 2023 Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act specifically vests control of all officers... with the central government.”

Furthermore, the court emphasised that since the chief secretary exercises control over excluded subjects, the Centre’s decision to extend Kumar’s tenure without the elected government’s concurrence “cannot be construed to be violation of law.” The power struggle between the Union and Delhi governments continues as they navigate the complex interplay of legislative and executive authority.