 "Supreme Court of India")
Every dispute arising between a state and the Centre while discharging their respective executive powers cannot be construed as a conflict which can be heard only by the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court on Thursday said.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath made it clear that under Article 131 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court with regard to civil suits is attracted only when a dispute arises between or amongst the states and the Centre in the context of constitutional relationship that exists between them and the legal rights flowing therefrom.
It gave the finding while disagreeing with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government's contention that the proceedings in a batch of petitions, against its various decisions, shall remain stayed till the suit filed by it against the Centre under Article 131 is adjudicated by the apex court.
"In our considered opinion, none of the above noticed issues are exclusively triable under Article 131 of the Constitution. Hence, we are unable to agree with contention of the applicant/GNCTD that the proceedings in the present batch of petitions shall remain stayed till the Original Suit filed by the applicant under Article 131 of the Constitution is adjudicated by the Supreme Court," the bench said.
"Every dispute which may arise between the state on the one hand and the Union of India on the other, in discharge of their respective executive powers cannot be construed as a dispute arising between the state and the Union of India attracting Article 131 of the Constitution," it explained.
"It is also clear that Article 131 of the Constitution is attracted only when a dispute arises between or amongst the states and the Union in the context of the constitutional relationship that exists between them and the legal rights flowing therefrom," it said.
The bench also said the question relating to competence of central government in directing the Delhi Government's Anti- Corruption Branch Police Station not to take cognisance of offences against the officials and employees of the Union government does not involve any dispute of federal nature as sought to be contended by the petitioner/applicant".
The Delhi government had earlier moved the Supreme Court seeking a direction that the high court be restrained from delivering its judgement on issues including the scope of powers of the city government to exercise its authority in performing public functions.
The apex court, however, had said that the pendency of the appeal will not come in the way of the high court delivering it judgement and it will examine the issue as and when it comes before it.
The AAP government had claimed that only the apex court has jurisdiction under the Constitution to deal with issues relating to the powers of the states and the Centre.
In the high court, it had sought a stay on proceedings on the ground that the issues involve a dispute of federal nature between the Centre and the Delhi government and the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
"If framers of the Constitution had wanted that disputes of federal nature to be dealt with by the various high courts, then there would have been no exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 in such issues," it had said.
