Delhi government liberty to move in appeal in case the High Court verdict was not in its favour.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the AAP government plea to restrain the Delhi High Court from pronouncing its verdict on a Delhi government plea for full Statehood. The High Court had reserved its order on May 24, following which, the Delhi government rushed to the Supreme Court, this time saying that High Court has no power to decide the issue as it pertained to a 'classic' federal
dispute between the Centre and a State. Only the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 131 to hear the dispute, the Delhi government argued in its petition. Throwing out the petition, a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit asked the Delhi government about an “anomaly” in its conduct. “You were the one who knocked on the doors of the Delhi High Court and now you don't want it to decide especially after having reserved its verdict?” Justice Misra asked.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, for the Delhi government, acknowledged the fact, but said they did not want the High Court to decide on merits and wanted its verdict to be confined to the limited question of whether the HC had jurisdiction or not to decide this “federal dispute”.

“Why should we tell the High Court to decide this issue or that? Every court in this country has the independence to decide cases within the constitutional framework,” Justice Misra responded.

At this point, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi for the Centre submitted the High Court was only complying with a Supreme Court order of April 12, 2016, asking it to pronounce judgment in the ongoing power tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre by end of July.

“This petition is totally misconceived. It was on the basis of their (Delhi government) petition that the Supreme Court had asked the Delhi government to pronounce judgment by end of July. The HC is only complying with your order. Now they have a problem with that too,” Mr. Rohatgi asked.

“This court should not spend time on these sort of things,” Mr. Rohatgi added.

“Yes, all we want to say is we cannot decide these kind of things at this stage. Look, once a matter is pending before the High Court, once the case has been reserved for judgment, the High Court will decide it rightly or wrongly,” Justice Misra told Ms. Jaising.

“But all we wanted was for the Supreme Court to tell the High Court to hold its hands and give its verdict on the point of jurisdiction alone,” Ms. Jaising pleaded.

“Look Madam, if I had been the Chief Justice of a High Court, I would not like the Supreme Court telling me what to do,” Justice Misra said, dismissing the petition.

The court however gave the Delhi government liberty to move in appeal in case the High Court verdict was not in its favour. The Delhi government petition had sought clarity on the scope and boundaries of the constitutional relationship between it and the Centre in administering the National Capital.

This special leave petition was primarily directed against Delhi High Court's decision on May 24 to reserve its verdict on the stand-off between Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung and the Kejriwal government over who has authority to appoint bureaucrats in the Capital.

It contended that the tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government is a “federal” dispute which the apex court, not the Delhi High Court, should decide.

The tensions between the NDA government and Mr. Kejriwal has affected every arm of governance in Delhi over the months even as about a dozen petitions lie pending in the High Court in which they contest each other's right to administer and govern the National Capital.

The dispute was centred on the powers of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution.

The Delhi government has also filed an original suit in the Supreme Court seeking a final resolution on questions of distribution of legislative and (co-extensive) executive powers between the Centre, represented by Mr. Jung, and the Delhi government under Article 239AA. The government wants the suit to be heard along with the special leave petition.