The Supreme Court of India has stepped in to resolve the ongoing dispute between the Delhi government and the Delhi Lieutenant Governor over the appointment of a new Chief Secretary. The court has directed both parties to hold discussions and reach a consensus on the shortlist of candidates provided by the central government.
The Delhi government, which is controlled by the Aam Aadmi Party, had approached the court after the central government extended the tenure of the current Chief Secretary or considered appointing a new official without consulting them. The government argued that such appointments should not be made without their consent, especially in light of a controversial ordinance granting the central government control over the posting of bureaucrats.
During the court hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, objected to the unilateral decision-making by the Lieutenant Governor. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, countered by stating that the Union Home Ministry had been making these appointments even before the contentious amendment. However, Singhvi argued that the ministry could only make appointments based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
In response, the bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud suggested that the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister should meet and propose a panel of names for the appointment. The Chief Justice proposed that the Delhi government could then select a candidate from the panel. Mehta accepted this proposal and agreed to return with a shortlist.
However, on his way out, Mehta commented on the treatment of officers involved in the case, implying dissatisfaction with their treatment. This remark was in reference to corruption allegations surrounding the current Chief Secretary, Naresh Kumar, whose son was linked to an alleged real estate scam. The Delhi High Court recently ordered a news website to remove an article that was deemed defamatory towards Kumar.
Kumar had filed a plea to take down the article and requested a restraining order against the news portal and the reporter to prevent further defamatory articles. His counsel argued that the article was pre-planned and intended to incite public sentiment against him.
