In a major setback to the AAP government in Delhi, two judges of the Supreme Court on Thursday agreed that the Centre should have the final word on posting and transfer of bureaucrats in the national capital administration, but their disagreement on finer details resulted in a split verdict and the matter got referred to a larger bench.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, whose Aam Aadmi Party has been accusing the Narendra Modi government at the Centre of appointing such officers who create hurdles in the works of the AAP government, termed the verdict as "unfortunate" and said it was ironic that a chief minister can't have power to appoint even a peon in his office.

While AAP used popular Bollywood dialogue "tareekh pe tareekh" (hearing after hearing) to describe a split verdict after four years of litigation, the BJP promptly accused Kejriwal of "declaring a war on the Supreme Court" and said it is considering filing contempt of court proceedings against him.

Welcoming the order, the saffron party said it was a "lesson" for Kejriwal and went on to describe him as an "urban naxal" who always tried to cross boundaries by adopting "unconstitutional" means.

Out of six contentions issues, the Delhi government won in three and lost to the Centre on two critical aspects of investigating power to probe central government employees and for setting up of inquiry commissions.

While it left for a larger bench to conclusively decide who will have control over administrative services in the national capital, the apex court bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan unanimously ruled that the the power to appoint inquiry commissions would rest with the Centre as "there is no 'State Government' in the Union Territory and the State Government (for this purpose) shall mean the Central Government".

In its 202-page verdict, the court, however, held that the elected Delhi government will have the right to appoint public prosecutors, to decide land revenue matters and also to appoint or deal with electricity commission or board.

On the most contentious issue, Justice Sikri said, "The transfers and postings of secretaries, heads of departments and other officers in the scale of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and above can be done by the Lieutenant Governor and the file submitted to him directly."

"For other levels, including DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service) officers, files can be routed through the chief minister to L-G. In case of difference of opinion between the L-G and the chief minister, the view of the L-G should prevail and the Ministry of Home Affairs can issue a suitable notification," he said.

Justice Sikri noted all transfers and postings for Grade III and IV DASS (Delhi Administration Subordinate Service) are done by the Secretary (Services), while those for Grades I and II are done by the Chief Secretary.

For "greater transparency" in transfer and posting of officers of this cadre, he suggested a civil services board headed by the Secretary (Services) for the Grade III and IV officials and by the Chief Secretary for the Grade I and II.

However, Justice Bhushan, in his dissenting view, was more blunt and held that the power to regulate transfer and posting of officers working for the Delhi government was not available to its assembly in the first place under the Constitution.

"With regard to 'services', the GNCTD (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) can exercise only those executive powers, which can be exercised by it under any law framed by Parliament or it may exercise those executive powers, which have been delegated to it." he said.

The split verdict is likely to lead to a fresh round of litigation between the Centre and the Delhi government and the Chief Justice of India will have to form a larger bench now to decide the row over services.

On the issue of jurisdiction and power of the ACB, the bench upheld the Delhi High Court's findings and said the the public order, police and land did not fall under the Delhi government's legislative and executive domain.

"In respect of 'police', GNCTD does not have either legislative or executive power. This court is required to look into the substance of such an exclusion and cannot be guided by hyper technicalities... Therefore, what has been specifically denied to GNCTD, it cannot venture to gain that power on such a plea," the bench said unanimously.

"... the ACB is not empowered to investigate into the offences of central government employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly, this investigation is carried out by the CBI. Therefore, it obviates the duality and conflict of jurisdiction as well," it held.

A five-judge bench had on July 4, 2018 laid down broad parameters for governance of the national capital, which has witnessed a power struggle between the Centre and the Delhi government ever since the AAP came to power in 2014.

In the landmark verdict, it had unanimously held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a state but clipped the L-G's powers, saying he has no "independent decision making power" and has to act on the aid and advice of the elected government.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)