Supreme Court Prima Facie Allows Extension Of Delhi Chief Secretary's Tenure

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, granted prima facie approval to the Central government's extension of Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar's tenure. The court, including Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, found the extension prima facie legal, emphasizing the distinctive role of the Delhi Chief Secretary, responsible for matters within and beyond the Delhi government's jurisdiction.

The ruling came in response to a plea by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government opposing the tenure extension. The court clarified that rules governing the extension of the AGMUT cadre Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers wouldn't apply to the Delhi Chief Secretary, limiting their scope to officers without responsibilities beyond the Delhi government's control.

While affirming the legality of the extension, the court refrained from conclusive adjudication, acknowledging the pending dispute before a Constitution Bench. This dispute involves the power struggle between the Delhi and Central governments over overseeing civil servants in Delhi, including the recent Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned the necessity of the extension, prompting Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to defend it as routine, citing precedent instances. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, argued for adherence to the court's 2020 and 2023 judgments, emphasizing the necessity for appointments to involve the Delhi government.

Singhvi contended that extension rules for All India Services require involvement by the concerned state government, suggesting a new appointment process from a pool of candidates. Solicitor General Mehta countered, asserting the routine nature of extensions and the Central government's authority in Chief Secretary appointments.

While the court's opinion is prima facie, its nuanced decision indicates a cautious evaluation of the ongoing power struggle, recognizing the broader constitutional implications in the pending dispute.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News writer, MIT ADT University