Thread by @LawBeatInd

#SupremeCourt to shortly hear a plea by #Delhi government challenging the Government of NCT Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2021.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Delhi Government submitted that the issue here in is not decided. Everything need not to be referred to the constitutional bench.

The Constitution bench has gone into entirety of 237, it may have left certain facets, Singhvi added.

CJI Ramana: Our endeavour is, why repeated exercises, you want urgent disposal of the matter.

Your Lordships is not here to second guess, constitutional bench took a view in it's judgment, Singhvi submitted.

CJI: We agree with your argument that certain arguments might not have been presented before the constitutional bench and the same was not considered.
But either no argument was raised or it was expressly not said.

Singhvi: Milords this is a Constitutional bench which has dealt with it in 8 Paras, don't think the would have gone anymore extensive.

Merely because the formulation is not in this way, Language is not in this way, If that is so then refer it but it is a well written judgment.

Singhvi further submitted that this will have large repercussions.

Singhvi: My ld friend tried 6 times to take an adjournment on the earlier dates and then they opted for this referring to constitutional bench issue.

Singhvi further submitted that #COVID19 alone has created such a burden, do Your Lordships have time to deal with a matter in a constitutional bench which has already been dealt with by a constitutional bench?

CJI Ramana: As far as constitutional bench of 2018 and referring to Balakrishnan Report that we can not get into, other issue what are the powers of the parliament to this extent there is a clear finding, we are not on that.

Point is that in particular issue is that what are the limitations, what are the other provisions of the constitution, these are not dealt by the constitution bench, CJI Ramana added.

My question is that what made the constitutional bench to not go into the issues, Singhvi argued.

The bench to come back after 5 minutes.

CJI Ramana: Mr Singhvi what we deal is that you have pressed enough to argue against not referring the matter to constitutional bench. I think it is now enough and we'll take a call on it.

Singhvi requested to make a few more arguments, adding that the Constitutional bench of 5 judges bench will not be able to correct itself as it has already been dealt with a 5 judges constitutional bench, then only a 7 judges bench will have to decide.

The plea hear today is not over referrence to constitutional bench, it is a review, this point I forgot to mention, Singhvi added.

Singhvi: There would be some issues which would be argued that it has been decided by the constitutional bench.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that your lordships are not deciding for the first time that a matter can be referred to a constitutional bench or not, it is already decided

My ld friend relied on Kashmir Judgment, there are two judgments which are in conflict and that is why it was said that the matter be referred to Constitutional bench, Mehta added

This is the question that is already not decided by the constitution bench and that it needs to be decided by the Constitution bench. I'll put my note by evening for your Lordships consideration, Mehta argued.

CJI Ramana: In case we think of constituting a 5 judges bench, how much time will you take to argue.

Singhvi: We can argue on the next day, it is a 6 years old matter.

Mehta: A day and a half or 2 days to be on a safer side.

The bench has reserved its order on the issue of Referring the matter to a constitutional bench.

BREAKING: #SupremeCourt has reserved its order on application moved by Centre seeking referring the matter to a constitutional bench, The matter pertains to Delhi Government's challenge to amendments in sections of ‘Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act.