GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 29-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 457 : 2023 INSC 1049
457
CASE DETAILS
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1268 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the Union Government has the 
unilateral power to appoint the Chief Secretary of NCTD and; whether the 
Union Government has the power to extend the service of the incumbent 
Chief Secretary.
Constitution of India – Article 239AA(3)(a); VIIth Schedule, 
State List, Entry 41 – Government of National Capital Territory of 
Delhi Act 1991 as amended by the Government of National Capital 
Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2023 – Writ petition fi led by 
Government of NCTD stating that they have reason to believe that 
the Union of India will unilaterally appoint the Chief Secretary in the 
exercise of the power u/s. 41 r/w s.45A(d) r/w s.45H(2), 1991 Act as 
amended by the 2023 (Amendment) Act – 2023 Constitution Bench 
judgment (Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India) had dealt with 
control over “services” pertaining to the National Capital Territory of 
Delhi – Constitutional validity of the provisions of the 2023 Amendment 
Act pending adjudication before the Constitution Bench, no stay on the 
operation of the amendment Act – Prima facie view taken:
Held: Though the Government of NCTD is the appointing authority 
for all posts in NCTD in terms of the 1954 Rules, the Transaction of 
Business Rules places the appointments to the posts of Chief Secretary 
and Commissioners of Police, Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Lands) 
outside the competence of the GNCTD – Unlike other States, the GNCTD 
only has the power to propose a candidate for the appointment as the 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Chief Secretary – The Lieutenant Governor is bound to refer the proposal 
to the Central Government and the decision of the Central Government 
on the proposal is fi nal – There can be no dispute about the basic position 
that the Chief Secretary, as the head of the administration, exercises 
jurisdiction of an administrative nature over the entirety of subjects 
which fall within the domain of the executive functions of GNCTD 
which would include those subjects (Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List II) 
over which the Legislative Assembly and the State Government do not 
have jurisdiction – Once it emerges that the Chief Secretary performs 
important functions, among other things, in relation to the excluded 
subjects as well, it would be farfetched to postulate that the Central 
Government is divested of the power to appoint the Chief Secretary – 
Further, r.16 of the 1958 Rules is a general rule which is applicable to 
members of the service holding the post of Chief Secretary across all 
States – The provision does not make a distinction between the Chief 
Secretary serving in NCTD and the Chief Secretaries serving in other 
States though the procedure for the appointment of the Chief Secretary 
of NCTD is diff erent from the procedure for the appointment of Chief 
Secretaries in other States in terms of the 1954 Rules read with the 
Transaction of Business Rules – The position of the Chief Secretary of 
the GNCTD is signifi cantly distinct in that the Chief Secretary performs 
delegated executive functions which straddle both subjects which fall 
within the executive and legislative competence of GNCTD as well as 
those which lie outside – Consequently, the restrictions which operate 
in relation to the grant of extension u/r.16 of the 1958 Rules in relation 
to the Chief Secretary of one of the State Governments would not stricto 
senso apply in relation to the GNCTD – At this stage, in view of the 
principles enumerated in the judgment of this Court in 2023 Constitution 
Bench judgment, and the subsequent developments which have taken 
place resulting in the enactment of the amendment to the GNCTD Act 
1991, the decision of the Union Government to extend the services 
of the incumbent Chief Secretary for a period of six months cannot 
be construed to be violative of law – Transaction of Business of the 
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Rules 1993 – r.55(2)
(b) – Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules 1954 – All India 
Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefi ts) Rules 1958 – Schedule to the 
459
Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations 
1955. [Paras 17, 24-26, 32, 33]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.