INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday permitted the Delhi government to defer for a week the administration of oath of central
government-appointed Justice Umesh Kumar (Retd) as chairman of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC).During a heated exchange
in CJI D Y Chandrachud's courtroom over the ordinance over services, senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, called
it the Centre's overreach while solicitor general Tushar Mehta accused the Delhi government of playing with the law with "devious
intention".'Govt reduced to spectator who pays for appointees, but has no control on them' Singhvi accused the Centre of attempting to
reduce the elected government of NCT of Delhi to a mere agency through the May 19 ordinance, ostensibly issued to annul a five-judge SC
judgment allowing Delhi government to control services
He said under the ordinance, the Centre will be appointing chairpersons to all statutory boards, which would mean that though the Delhi
government would pay for their salaries and perks, it cannot hold them accountable.Mehta said the AAP government is resorting to deceit and
half-truths, saying the CM on June 27 directed the power minister to administer oath to Kumar, but on the very next day, the minister
decided to take disciplinary action against department officials who attempted to fix the date of oath
He said as per the SC judgment, the Centre had consulted the Allahabad HC chief justice before appointing Kumar
He said Kumar was appointed after AAP government nominee Justice Rajeev Shrivastava expressed inability to take up the assignment
Mehta said after the President approved Kumar's appointment on June 21, the CM recommended the name of Justice Sangeet Lodha for the post
the same day.The bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha said it would suggest deferment of Kumar's oath till Tuesday, when it
would take up for hearing the Delhi government's petition challenging the Centre's decision to appoint the DERC chairperson
"The LG should not write in the meanwhile to the CM to administer oath to Justice Kumar," the CJI said.When SG said it would be akin to the
court putting a stamp of approval on the "dodgy game" played by the AAP government to delay the oath of Kumar, the CJI said, "Then it would
be better to stay the June 21 notification (appointing Kumar)
We are inclined to stay the notification." However, the SG vehemently opposed any stay on the appointment.The Delhi government also
challenged the constitutional validity of Section 45D introduced by the May 19 ordinance in the Government of National Capital Territory
Act, 1991, which provided: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any authority, board,
commission or any statutory body, by whatever name it may be called, or any office-bearer or member thereof, constituted or appointed by or
under any law for the time being in force, in and for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, shall be constituted or appointed or
nominated by the President."Singhvi said there are several statutory boards, including National Commission for Women, Delhi Jal Board,
Juvenile Justice Board, Delhi Waqf Board
The ordinance postulated appointment of chairpersons to all these boards by the Centre and reduced the elected government of Delhi to a mere
spectator who pays for the appointees but without exercising any control over them.Referring to the DERC chairman's appointment, the Delhi
government alleged that its power supply scheme is the most popular as it gives 200 units of free electricity per month to poor people
The Centre wants to put spokes in this scheme and that is why it is appointing the DERC chairman, Singhvi alleged.Previously, the LG had
objected to the Delhi government nominating Justice Shrivastava as DERC chairman on the ground that there was no consultation with the Delhi
The AAP government had said that since Justice Shrivastava had worked as a judge of the Madhya Pradesh HC, it had consulted the CJ of that
The SC had vindicated AAP government's stand and on May 19, hours before the issuance of the ordinance, had directed the Centre to notify
the appointment within two weeks.
