Unfortunate That Battle Between Union, Delhi Governments Continues: Supreme Court

The AAP government’s plea was against Lt Governor V.K. Saxena’s alleged delay in ratifying the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Amendment) Bill.

supreme court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said it was “unfortunate” that the Union and Delhi governments cannot seem to agree on anything, while refusing to hear the disagreements between them on the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 2022. The Supreme Court bench, according to the Times of India, asked the Aam Aadmi Party government to approach the Delhi high court on the matter.

The AAP government’s plea was against Lt Governor V.K. Saxena’s alleged delay in ratifying the Bill, which raises the retirement age of the chairman and members of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission.

“The thing that is unfortunate is that the battle between the Delhi government and the Centre continues. But this does not warrant an interference of proceedings before the high court by this court,” a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka said.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, arguing for the AAP government, told the court that the Bill has been pending with the LG for seven months. He said this was hampering the commission’s working, Hindustan Times reported.

“But why a petition under Article 32 (public interest litigation)? Why can’t you go to the high court and argue it there? This battle between you two (Delhi government and Centre) continues for every small thing. So, will everything come to this court?” the apex court bench asked Singhvi.

“We have broadly emulated the law of Andhra Pradesh. There it was permission was given to Andhra Pradesh in 14 days, but here it is pending for seven months. It is delay fundamentally due to political reasons,” Singhvi responded.

The court, however, refused to intervene and asked the government to go to the high court. The court also refused Singhvi’s request to tell the high court to act quickly. “Sorry, we don’t want to set a wrong precedent. You go to the high court,” the judges said.