The Supreme Court on Friday proposed that the central government submit a list of officials for the position of Delhi’s chief secretary, allowing the state government to make the final selection. The court’s directive stemmed from a petition filed by the Delhi government on November 7, challenging the unilateral decision-making process of the Centre in appointing Delhi’s chief secretary, emphasizing the need for confidence in the elected state government.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, heading the bench, emphasized the importance of a functional government process, stating, “We must foster a degree of confidence in the elected arm of the state.” The Centre committed to providing the names of officials on the following Tuesday when the petition is scheduled for a hearing.
The plea by the Delhi government referenced Rule 7(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, asserting that appointments to cadre posts in a state cadre should be made by the state government. Additionally, it cited the Supreme Court’s May order, which granted the services department to the Delhi government. The petition argued that the 2023 Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) (Amendment) Act contradicted the court’s decision, reducing the Delhi government to a “mere observer” in the chief secretary’s appointment.
The bench, consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, proposed a solution, urging the Centre to suggest a panel of the best, senior-most officers. The suggested names could be shared with the Delhi government before the hearing, allowing a decision to be reached in court. The bench emphasized the need for a structured approach, suggesting that the Centre propose a panel from which the Delhi government can make the final choice.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, acknowledged the court’s suggestion, stating that the chief secretary’s appointment process was already underway. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, proposed that the Centre recommend a set of five best officers, similar to the practice before the Ordinance.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the LG, cautioned against disclosing names publicly and emphasized the need to respect the officers’ dignity. The bench agreed, highlighting the importance of not engaging in mudslinging against officers and safeguarding their careers.
Singhvi refuted allegations against the officials, emphasizing that they do not heed to him. Regarding a defamatory article about Chief Secretary Kumar, Singhvi clarified that it was unrelated to the Delhi government.
