A day after the six-month extension in service was granted to Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar, senior chief Kapil Sibal stated that this went past 2024 Lok Sabha elections and Centre needed to nominate officers to make the state authorities uncomfortable.
In a publish on X, Sibal, a Rajya Sabha MP and an eminent lawyer, stated, “Delhi Chief Secretary. Supreme Court grants six months extension to him. Takes us beyond 2024 Lok Sabha elections.”
“That’s all that the Centre wanted : Appoint officers to make Delhi governments days uncomfortable, ” Sibal added.
His remarks got here a day after the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an official order approving the extension in service for Naresh Kumar, an IAS officer of the AGMUT cadre and at present serving as Delhi Chief Secretary.
“The Competent Authority has granted approval for the extension, permitting Kumar to proceed in his position as Chief Secretary for a further interval of six months.
“The extension is effective from December 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, in accordance with Rule 16(1) of the All India Services (Death Cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1953, ” the order learn.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that the Centre has the facility to increase Kumar’s companies for a interval of six months.
“We have come to the conclusion that at this stage…..the decision of the Union government to extend the services of incumbent Chief Secretary for a period of six months, cannot be construed to be violative of law or constitutional distribution of power between the Union and the government of NCT of Delhi, ” famous a Bench presided over by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud in its order.
The petition filed by the Delhi authorities had pleaded that it was all the time ‘completely’ the elected authorities which appointed the Chief Secretary.
In an earlier listening to, the Supreme Court in a bid to offer a “workable solution” had requested the Union authorities to offer a listing of 5 senior bureaucrats and the Delhi Government could “pick one name” out of these prompt by the Centre.
It had stated that doing so would meet the “concerns of the Union government” and on the identical time, “foster a degree of confidence in the officer in the elected arm of the state”.