The Kejriwal government suffered a setback on Friday when the Supreme Court declined to restrain the Delhi high court from pronouncing its verdict on a batch of petitions relating to the issue of jurisdiction on various aspects between the Centre and the Delhi government. The apex court said the high court can pronounce its verdict, including the issue relating to jurisdiction as well as on merits.
Senior counsel Indira Jaising, appearing for the Delhi government, submitted before a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Uday Lalit that the high court ought not to have entertained the writ petition, as it has no power to decide the dispute of this nature between the Centre and the state under Article 131 of the Constitution.
Rejecting the submission, the bench said in its brief order, “On a perusal of the cause title, we find that the petitioner had approached the high court. In our considered opinion, when the high court has already heard the matter and reserved the judgment on all the issues, including the preliminary issue, it is desirable that the high court should pronounce the judgment. Thereafter, needless to say, it will be open to the parties to seek their remedies as advised in law.”
Even as the counsel pleaded that the high court which has no jurisdiction should not give its verdict or if at all it gives its verdict it should be confined only to the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, Justice Misra asked, “Why should we tell the high court that you decide this and don’t decide that. The high court has its own perceptions and authority under the Constitution.”
Attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi told the court that this appeal when the judgment is reserved is completely misconceived and cannot be entertained.
When the counsel vehemently pleaded that only the Supreme Court has the power to adjudicate in a dispute between the Centre and a state, Justice Misra said, “Whether the high court has jurisdiction to decide or not is itself a constitutional issue, which can be interpreted by the high court. We cannot interfere with the independence of high courts.”
Justice Misra clearly told the counsel that the state must wait for the verdict of the high court. “You had gone to the HC and now you wait for its judgment. If you still feel aggrieved the doors of this court is still open for you,” said the bench.
The AAP government said that disputes have arisen between the state government and the Centre on various issues of the constitutional relationship.
