GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 457, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 457 : 2023 INSC 1049
457
CASE DETAILS
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1268 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the Union Government has the 
unilateral power to appoint the Chief Secretary of NCTD and; whether the 
Union Government has the power to extend the service of the incumbent 
Chief Secretary.
Constitution of India – Article 239AA(3)(a); VIIth Schedule, 
State List, Entry 41 – Government of National Capital Territory of 
Delhi Act 1991 as amended by the Government of National Capital 
Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2023 – Writ petition ﬁ led by 
Government of NCTD stating that they have reason to believe that 
the Union of India will unilaterally appoint the Chief Secretary in the 
exercise of the power u/s. 41 r/w s.45A(d) r/w s.45H(2), 1991 Act as 
amended by the 2023 (Amendment) Act – 2023 Constitution Bench 
judgment (Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India) had dealt with 
control over “services” pertaining to the National Capital Territory of 
Delhi – Constitutional validity of the provisions of the 2023 Amendment 
Act pending adjudication before the Constitution Bench, no stay on the 
operation of the amendment Act – Prima facie view taken:
Held: Though the Government of NCTD is the appointing authority 
for all posts in NCTD in terms of the 1954 Rules, the Transaction of 
Business
Rules places the appointments to the posts of Chief Secretary 
and Commissioners of Police, Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Lands) 
outside the competence of the GNCTD – Unlike other States, the GNCTD 
only has the power to propose a candidate for the appointment as the
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Chief Secretary – The Lieutenant Governor is bound to refer the proposal 
to the Central Government and the decision of the Central Government 
on the proposal is ﬁ nal – There can be no dispute about the basic position 
that the Chief Secretary, as the head of the administration, exercises 
jurisdiction of an administrative nature over the entirety of subjects 
which fall within the domain of the executive functions of GNCTD 
which would include those subjects (Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List II) 
over which the Legislative Assembly and the State Government do not 
have jurisdiction – Once it emerges that the Chief Secretary performs 
important functions, among other things, in relation to the excluded 
subjects as well, it would be farfetched to postulate that the Central 
Government is divested of the power to appoint the Chief Secretary – 
Further, r.16 of the 1958 Rules is a general rule which is applicable to 
members of the service holding the post of Chief Secretary across all 
States – The provision does not make a distinction between the Chief 
Secretary serving in NCTD and the Chief Secretaries serving in other 
States though the procedure for the appointment of the Chief Secretary 
of NCTD is diﬀ erent from the procedure for the appointment of Chief 
Secretaries in other States in terms of the 1954 Rules read with the 
Transaction of Business Rules – The position of the Chief Secretary of 
the GNCTD is signiﬁ cantly
distinct in that the Chief Secretary performs 
delegated executive functions which straddle both subjects which fall 
within the executive and legislative competence of GNCTD as well as 
those which lie outside – Consequently, the restrictions which operate 
in relation to the grant of extension u/r.16 of the 1958 Rules in relation 
to the Chief Secretary of one of the State Governments would not stricto 
senso apply in relation to the GNCTD – At this stage, in view of the 
principles enumerated in the judgment of this Court in 2023 Constitution 
Bench judgment, and the subsequent developments which have taken 
place resulting in the enactment of the amendment to the GNCTD Act 
1991, the decision of the Union Government to extend the services 
of the incumbent Chief Secretary for a period of six months cannot 
be construed to be violative of law – Transaction of Business of the 
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Rules 1993 – r.55(2)
(b) – Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules 1954 – All India 
Services (Death-cum-Retirement Beneﬁ ts) Rules 1958 – Schedule to the
459
Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations 
1955. [Paras 17, 24-26, 32, 33]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Union of India,(2018) 8 SCC 501: [2018] 
7 SCR 1; Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs Union of India, (2023) 9 SCC 1; E.P. 
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1974) (4) SCC 3: [1974] 2 SCR 
348 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.1268 
of 2023
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Appearances:
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Shadan Farasat, Amit Bhandari, 
Aman Sharma, Siddharth Seem, Harshit Anand, Aman Naqvi, Ms. Hrishika 
Jain, Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Advs. for the 
Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv., Kanu Agrawal, 
Padmesh Mishra, Arkaj Kumar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. The incumbent Chief Secretary of the Government of the National 
Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) is due to demit oﬃ  ce on superannuation 
on 30 November 2023. The petitioner approached this court on the ground 
that they have reason to believe that the Union of India will unilaterally 
appoint the Chief Secretary in the exercise of the power under Sections 41 
read with 45A(d) read with 45H(2) of the Government of National Capital 
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA
& ORS.
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Territory of Delhi Act 19911 as amended by the Government of National 
Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 20232. The petitioner initiated 
proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking: 
a. 
A direction restraining respondents from making a unilateral 
appointment of the Chief Secretary of the GNCTD or extending 
the tenure of the incumbent Chief Secretary; and 
b. 
An order appointing one of the ﬁ ve senior most oﬃ  cers serving 
in the AGMUT cadre with the requisite experience of having 
served in the GNCTD. 
The Solicitor General has apprised the Court that the Union 
Government proposes to grant an extension of six months to the incumbent. 
2. Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution stipulates that the 
Legislative Assembly shall have power to make laws with respect to any 
matter in the State List or Concurrent List insofar as any such matter 
is applicable to Union Territories except for certain excluded matters. 
Among the excluded matters are Entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State List and 
Entries 64, 65 and 66 of the State List insofar as they relate to Entries 
1, 2 and 18. Consequently, the subjects of (i) Public order (Entry 1); 
(ii) Police (Entry 2); and (iii) Land (Entry 18) lie outside the legislative 
domain of the Legislative Assembly. The division of legislative power 
between NCTD and the Union of India as stipulated in Article 238-AA(3) 
is summarized below: 
a. 
The Legislative Assembly of NCTD
has the competence to enact 
laws for the whole or any part of NCTD in respect of matters 
enumerated in the State List or Concurrent List insofar as such 
matters are applicable to Union territories except matters with 
respect to Entries 1,2, and 18 of the State List and Entries 64,65, 
and 66 of the State List insofar as they relate to Entries 1 (public 
order), 2 (police), and 18 (land) of the List3; 
1 
“GNCTD Act 1991”
2 
“2023 Amendment Act”
3 
Article 239-AA(3)(a)
461
b. 
Parliament shall have the power to enact laws for NCTD with 
respect to all entries in the State List and Concurrent List4;
c. 
If any provision of a law made by the Legislative Assembly of 
NCTD is repugnant to a provision of a law made by Parliament, 
the law made by Parliament shall prevail.5 
3. Two Constitution Benches of this Court have dealt with the 
constitutional status imparted to the National Capital Territory by virtue of 
the provisions of Article 239AA of the Constitution. These are:
(i) 
State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Union of India6
(ii) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs Union of India7
4. The second decision of the Constitution Bench (2023 Constitution 
Bench judgment) specifically dealt with control over “services” 
pertaining to the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD). The subject 
of services is comprised in Entry 41 of the State List to the Seventh 
Schedule (“State Public Services; State Public Services Commission”). 
The 2023 Constitution Bench judgment held that Article 239-AA(3)(a) 
does not exclude the legislative power of NCTD over entries other than 
those expressly excluded in the provision, and thus, NCTD has legislative 
competence over “services”. Since executive power is co-extensive 
with legislative power, this Court held that NCTD will have executive 
power over “services”. An incidental issue that arose was with respect 
to the scope of the executive power over entries over which both the 
Union of India and NCTD have legislative
competence. Drawing upon 
the principles in Articles 73 and 162, the 2023 Constitution Bench held 
that on entries over which Parliament also has legislative competence, 
the executive power shall ordinarily lie with NCTD. However, such 
executive power would be “subject to and limited by” the executive 
power expressly conferred upon the Union of India by provisions of the 
4 
Article 239-AA(3)(b)
5 
Article 239-AA(3)(c)
6 
(2018) 8 SCC 501- 
7 
(2023) 9 SCC 1 – “2023 Constitution Bench”
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Constitution or a law made by Parliament.8 The relevant observation is 
extracted below: 
“85. […] The executive power of NCTD shall extend to all entries in 
List II and List III, other than the entries expressly excluded in Article 
239AA(3). Such power shall be subject to the executive power of the 
Union (through the Lieutenant Governor) only when the Union has 
been granted such power by the Constitution or a law of Parliament. 
Therefore, the executive power of NCTD, in the absence of a law 
by Parliament, shall extend to all subjects on which it has power to 
legislate.”
[…]
“95. […] The executive power of the Union, in the absence of a law 
upon its executive power relating to any subject in the State List, shall 
cover only matters relating to the three entries which are excluded 
from the legislative domain of NCTD. As a corollary, in the absence 
of a law or provision of the Constitution, the executive power of the 
Lieutenant Governor acting on behalf of the Union Government shall 
extend only to matters related to the three entries mentioned in Article 
239-AA(3)(a), subject to the limitations in Article 73. Furthermore, 
if the Lieutenant Governor diﬀ ers with the Council of Ministers of 
GNCTD, he shall act in accordance with the procedure laid down in 
the Transaction of Business Rules. However, if Parliament enacts 
a law granting executive power on any subject which is within the 
domain of NCTD, the executive
power of the Lieutenant Governor 
shall be modiﬁ ed to the extent, as provided in that law. Furthermore, 
under Section 49 of the GNCTD Act, the Lieutenant Governor and 
the Council of Ministers must comply with the particular directions 
issued by the President on speciﬁ c occasions.”
8 
The proviso to Article 73 states that the Union of India shall not have executive power 
on matters over which the State can also enact on unless such power is expressly 
granted by the Constitution or law of Parliament. The proviso to Article 162 states 
that on matters over which both the state legislature and Parliament can make laws, 
the executive power of States shall be subject to and limited by the executive power 
expressly conferred upon Union of India by a law of Parliament or by the Constitution.
463
The Court held that NCTD has legislative and executive power with 
respect to services under Entry 41. Since, however, the subjects of Public 
order, Police and Land are excluded from the domain of the Legislative 
Assembly, this Court observed :
“160. […] The legislative and executive power of NCTD over Entry 
41 shall not extend over to services related to “public order”, “police” 
and “land”. However, legislative and executive power over services 
such as Indian Administrative Services, or Joint Cadre services, which 
are relevant for the implementation of policies and vision of NCTD in 
terms of day-to-day administration of the region shall lie with NCTD.”
5. After the judgment of the 2023 Constitution Bench, the President in 
the exercise of powers under Article 123 of the Constitution promulgated the 
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 
2023 by which a provision9 was included in the GNCTD Act 1991 excluding 
the legislative competence of the NCTD over Entry 41 of the List II. By 
an order dated 20 July 2023, this Court referred the issue on the contours 
of the power of Parliament to enact a law under Article 239-AA(7) to a 
Constitution Bench. By the said order, the application for the stay of the 
2023 Ordinance was dismissed. 
6. On 11 August 2023, Parliament enacted the 2023 Amendment Act. 
The petitioners ﬁ led an interlocutory application10 seeking an amendment 
to the writ petition challenging the provisions of the 2023
Amendment Act. 
The constitutional validity of the provisions of the 2023 Amendment Act is 
pending adjudication before the Constitution Bench. 
7. Rule 55(2)(b) of the Transaction of Business of the Government 
of National Capital Territory of Delhi Rules 199311 requires the Lieutenant 
Governor to refer a proposal to appoint the Chief Secretary to the Central 
Government:
“(2) Subject to any instructions which may from time to time be issued 
by the Central Government, the Lieutenant Governor shall make a 
9 
Section 3A of the 2023 Ordinance 
10 IA No. 160111 of 2023 in WP (C) 678 of 2023
11 “Transaction of Business Rules”
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
prior reference to the Central Government in the Ministry of Home 
Aﬀ airs or to the appropriate Ministry with a copy to the Ministry of 
Home Aﬀ airs in respect of the following matters:-
(a) Proposals aﬀ ecting the relations of the Central Government with 
any State Government, the Supreme Court of India or any other High 
Court;
(b) Proposals for the appointment of Chief Secretary and 
Commissioner of Police, Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Lands);
(c) important cases which aﬀ ect or are likely to aﬀ ect the peace and 
tranquility of the National Capital Territory; and
(d) cases which aﬀ ect or are likely to aﬀ ect the interests of any minority 
community, Scheduled Castes or the backward classes.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. Section 41 which deals with matters on which the Lieutenant 
Governor shall act in his sole discretion has been amended to include, in 
clause (iii) of sub-section (1), the discharge of functions under Part IV-A of 
the Act. Part IV-A has been introduced by way of an amendment. Section 
45A(d) deﬁ nes the Chief Secretary to mean “the Chief Secretary of the 
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi appointed by the Central 
Government”. Clause (i) of Section 45A deﬁ nes “Group A oﬃ  cers” in the 
following terms :
“(i) “Group ‘A’ oﬃ  cers” means the oﬃ  cers serving in the aﬀ airs of 
the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi—
(a) belonging to All India Services, except the oﬃ  cers of the
Indian 
Police Service;
(b)  who are classiﬁ ed as Group ‘A’ oﬃ  cers, under rule 4 of the Central 
Civil Services (Classiﬁ cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965,
but shall not include the oﬃ  cers who are serving in connection with any 
subject matter, whether fully or in part connected with Entries 1, 2 and 
18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and Entries 
64, 65 and 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
465
insofar as they relate to Entries 1, 2 and 18 or any other subject matter 
which is connected therewith or incidental thereto:
(emphasis supplied) 
9. Among other amendments, Section 45E provides for the constitution 
of the National Capital Civil Service Authority. In terms of sub-Section (2) of 
Section 45E, the Authority shall consist of the Chief Minister of NCTD, the 
Chief Secretary of GNCTD, and the Principal Home Secretary of GNCTD. 
Section 45H deﬁ nes the powers and functions of the authority. Sub-section 
(1) of Section 45H provides as follows:
“45-H.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the 
time being in force, the Authority shall have the responsibility to 
recommend the transfers and postings of all Group ‘A’ oﬃ  cers and 
oﬃ  cers of DANICS serving in the aﬀ airs of the Government of National 
Capital Territory of Delhi but not oﬃ  cers serving in connection with 
any subject matter, either fully or in part, connected with Entries 
1, 2 and 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; 
and Entries 64, 65 and 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the 
Constitution insofar as they relate to Entries 1, 2 and 18 or any other 
subject matter which is connected therewith or incidental thereto, to 
the Lieutenant Governor:
Provided that Authority may, if it deems appropriate, by way of a 
recommendation, delegate the responsibility to any other authority of 
the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.”
(emphasis
supplied)
10. Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel appearing on behalf 
of the petitioners submits that:
a. 
The decision of this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil 
Nadu & Anr12, dwelt with the importance of the post of Chief 
Secretary in terms of its sensitivity, responsibility and the rapport 
which is required between the Chief Secretary and the Chief 
Minister;
12 (1974) (4) SCC 3
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
b. 
The provisions of Section 45A(d) contain only a deﬁ nition of 
the expression “Chief Secretary” and cannot be construed to be 
a substantive provision governing the appointment of the Chief 
Secretary by the Central Government;
c. 
Section 45E of the amended statute which deals with the transfers 
and postings of the Group A oﬃ  cers under the auspices of the 
National Capital Civil Service Authority cannot encompass the 
Chief Secretary who is a ex oﬃ  cio part of the authority;
d. 
The power under Rule 55(2)(b) of the Transaction of Business 
Rules has always been exercised by the Lieutenant Governor on 
the aid and advice of the NCTD Government;
e. 
In terms of the third proviso of Rule 16(1) of the All India Services 
(Death-cum-Retirement Beneﬁ ts) Rules 195813, an extension 
to a member of the All India Service holding the post of Chief 
Secretary to a State Government can be granted for a period of 
not more than six months “on the recommendations made by the 
concerned State Government with full justiﬁ cation and in public 
interest with the prior approval of the Central Government”;
f. 
Reference to the State Government in the third proviso to Rule 
16 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules 1958 can only mean the GNCTD 
bearing in mind the observations in paragraph 173 of the 
judgment in the 2023 Constitution Bench. Thus, in the absence 
of its recommendation, which has to be backed by a justiﬁ cation 
and in public interest, no
extension can be granted unilaterally 
by the Central Government;
g. 
No extension has been granted to the Chief Secretary in GNCTD 
even in a single instance over 30 years; and
h. 
Apart from the three expressly excluded entries of the State List 
pertaining to Police, Public Order and Land, the Chief Secretary 
also deals with 110 other entries of the Seventh Schedule in the 
performance of his functions. That is why a recommendation for 
13 “1958 Rules”
467
the appointment of the Chief Secretary has emanated from the 
GNCTD while the appointment is actually made by the Union 
Government. Hence, the proposed extension which is sought to 
be granted to the Chief Secretary is without the authority of law.
11. In response to the plea which has been made by the petitioner, 
an aﬃ  davit has been ﬁ led by the Joint Secretary (Union Territories) in the 
Union Ministry of Home Aﬀ airs. The aﬃ  davit sets out that:
a. 
Extensions have been granted in the previous 12 months alone 
to the Chief Secretaries in the States of West Bengal, Rajasthan, 
Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, as set out in the table 
extracted below :
Name of the
Oﬃ  cer Serving as 
Chief Secretary
State/Union
Territory
Date of
superannuation
Periodof
Extension Granted
HK Dwivedi,
 IAS
(WB:1988)
West Bengal
30.06.2023
06 Months
(from 01.07.2023
to 31.12.2023)
Usha Sharma,
IAS 
(RR: 1985)
Rajasthan
30.06.2023
06 Months
(from 01.07.2023
to 31.12.2023)
Durga Shanker 
Mishra, 
IAS (UP: 1984)
Uttar Pradesh
31.12.2021
01 year
(from 01.01.2022
to 31.12.2022)
01 year
(from 01.01.2023
to 31.12.2023)
Iqbal Singh Bains, 
IAS (MP:1985)
Madhya 
Pradesh
30.11.2022
06 Months
(from 01.12.2022
to 31.05.2023)
06 months (from
01.06.2023 to
30.11.2023)
b. 
Senior IAS as well as IPS oﬃ  cers in the AGMUT cadre have been 
granted extensions of tenure on superannuation on the following 
occasions in the previous ten years:
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR.
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Name of the 
Oﬃ  cer Serving
 as Chief 
Secretary
State/ Union
 Territory
Date of 
superannuation
Period of 
Extension Granted
Shri Subhash 
Kumar, 
IAS (UK: 1977)
Uttarakhand
30.04.2014
06 Months
(from 01.05.2014
to 31.10.2014)
Dr. Varesh Sinha, 
IAS (GJ: 1977)
Gujarat
30.04.2014
03 Months
(from 01.05.2014
to 31.07.2014) 03 
Months
(from01.08.2014
to 31.10.2014)
Shri Rinchen 
Ongmu,
 IAS (SK: 1977)
Sikkim
31.01.2015
03 Months
(from 01.02.2015 to
30.04.2015)
03 Months
(from 01.05.2015 to
31.07.2015)
Shri Shakuntala 
Jakhu, 
IAS (HY: 1978)
Haryana
30.09.2014
02 Months
(from 01.10.2014 to
30.11.2014)
Shri D.M.Spolia, 
IAS (AGMUT: 
1979)
Delhi
31.01.2015
01 month
(from 01.02.2015 to
28.02.2015)
Shri Kaushik 
Mukherjee, 
IAS (KN: 1978)
Karnataka
30.09.2015
03 Months
(from 01.10.201 5to
31.12.2015)
Shri C. C. Rajan, 
IAS (RJ:1978)
Rajasthan
31.12.2015
03 Months
(from 01.01.2016 to
31.03.2016)
Shri 
Alok Ranjan,
IAS(UP:1978)
Uttar Pradesh
31.03.2016
03 Months
(from 01.04.2016 to
30.06.2016)
Dr. Rajiv Sharma, 
IAS (TG:1982)
Telangana
31.05.2016
03 Months
(from 01.06.2016 to
31.08.2016)
469
Shri Arvind 
Jadhav, IAS (KN: 
1978)
Karnataka
30.06.2016
03 Months
(from01.07.2016 to
30.09.2016)
Shri Rajesh 
Kumar 
Srivastava, IAS 
(AGMUT: 1984)
Goa
30.06.2016
03 Months
(from 01.07.2016 to
30.09.2016)
03 Months
(from 01.10.2016 to
31.12.2016)
Shri S.P. Tucker, 
IAS (AP:1981)
Andhra 
Pradesh
31.12.2016
03 Months
(from 01.01.2017 to
31.03.2017)
Shri Swadheen S 
Kshatriya, IAS 
(MH: 1980)
Maharashtra
31.01.2017
03 Months
(from 01.02.2017 to
30.04.2017)
Shri V.K.
Pipersenia, IAS 
(MP: 1980)
Madhya
Pradesh
31.08.2017
06 Months
(from 01.09.2017 to
31.03.2018)
Shri Rajani 
Ranjan Rashmi, 
IAS (MN: 1983)
Manipur
30.09.2017
03 Months
(from 01.10.2017 to
31.12.2017)
03 Months
(from 01.01.2018 to
31.03.2018)
Shri Bharat 
Bhushan Vyas, 
IAS (JK/
AGMUT: 1986)
Jammu
& Kashmir
30.11.2017
03 Months
(from 01.12.2017 to
28.02.2018)
03 Months
(from 01.03.2018 to
31.05.2018)
01Year
(from 01.06.2018 to
31.05.2019)
Shri Anjani 
Kumar Singh, 
IAS (BH: 1981)
Bihar
28.02.2018
03 Months
(from 01.03.2018 to
31.05.2018)
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Ms. Ratna 
Prabha, IAS 
(KN: 1981)
Karnataka
31.03.2018
03 Months
(from 01.04.2018 to
30.06.2018)
Shri Basant
Pratap
Singh,IAS 
(MP:1984)
Madhya
Pradesh
30.06.2018
06 Months
(from 01.07.2018 to
31.01.2019)
Shri Sudhir 
Tripathi,IAS(JH: 
1985)
Jharkhand
30.09.2018
03 Months
(from01.10.2018 to
31.12.2018)
03 Months
(from 01.01.2019 to
31.03.2019)
Shri Dinesh
Kumar Jain,
IAS (MH: 1983)
Maharashtra
31.01.2019
06 Months
(from 01.02.2019 to
31.07.2019)
Dr. Anup 
Chandra Pandey, 
IAS
(UP:1984)
Uttar Pradesh
28.02.2019
06 Months
(from 01.03.2019 to
31.08.2019)
Dr. J.N. Singh, 
IAS (GJ: 1983)
Gujarat
31.05.2019
06 Months
(from 01.06.2019 to
30.11.2019)
Shri Ajoy 
Mehta, IAS
(MH:1984)
Maharashtra
30.09.2019
06 Months
(from 01.10.2019to
31.03.2020)
06 Months
(from 01.04.2020 to
30.06.2020)
Shri Deepak 
Kumar,
IAS (BH: 1984)
Bihar
29.02.2020
06 Months
(from 01.03.2020 to
31.08.2020)
06 Months
(from 01.09.2020 to
28.02.2021)
471
Shri Nilam 
Sawhney, IAS 
(AP: 1984)
Andhra 
Pradesh
30.06.2020
03 Months
(from 01.07.2020 to
30.09.2020)
03 Months
(from 01.10.2020 to
31.12.2020)
Shri T.K. 
Shanmugam,IAS 
(TN: 1985)
Tamil Nadu
31.07.2020
03 Months
(from 01.08.2020 to
31.10.2020)
03 Months
(from 01.11.2020 to
31.01.2021)
Shri Anil Mukim, 
IAS (GJ:1985)
Gujarat
31.08.2020
06 Months
(from 01.09.2020 to
28.02.2021)
06 Months
(from 01.03.2021 to
31.08.2021)
Shri Alapan 
Bandopadhyay, 
IAS(WB:1987)
WestBengal
31.05.2021
03 Months
(from 01.06.2021 to
31.08.2021)
Shri Tripurari 
Sharan, 
IAS (BH: 1985)
Bihar
30.06.2021
03 Months
(from 01.07.2021 to
30.09.2021)
03 Months
(from 01.10.2021
to 31.12.2021)
Shri Aditya Nath 
Das, IAS (AP: 
1987)
Andhra 
Pradesh
30.06.2021
03 Months
(from 01.07.2021 to
30.09.2021)
Dr. Sameer 
Sharma, IAS( AP: 
1985)
Andhra 
Pradesh
30.11.2021
06 Months
(from 01.12.2021 to
31.05.2022)
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
06 Months
(from 01.06.2022 to
30.11.2022)
Shri Durga 
Shanker Misra, 
IAS
(UP:1984)
Uttar Pradesh
31.12.2021
01 Year
(from 01.01.2022 to
31.12.2022)
01 Year
(from 01.01.2023 to
31.12.2023)
Shri Suresh 
Chandra
 Mahapatra, 
IAS (OD: 1986)
Odisha
28.02.2022
06 Months
(from 01.03.2022 to
31.08.2022)
06 Months
(from 01.09.2022
to 28.02.2023)
Dr. 
Rajesh Kumar,
IAS (MN: 1988)
Manipur
30.06.2022
06 Months
(from 01.07.2022 to
31.12.2022)
06 Months
(from01.01.2023 to
31.05.2023)
Shri Pankaj 
Kumar, 
IAS (GJ: 1986)
Gujarat
31.05.2022
08 Months
(from 01.06.2022 to
31.01.2023)
Shri Iqbal Singh 
Bains, IAS (MP: 
1985)
Madhya 
Pradesh
30.11.2022
06 Months
(from 01.12.2022 to
30.05.2023)
06 Months
(from 01.06.2023
to 30.11.2023)
Shri Hari 
Krishna
Dwivedi,IAS 
(WB: 1988)
West Bengal
30.06.2023
06 Months
(from 01.07.2023 to
31.12.2023)
473
Smt. 
Usha Sharma, 
IAS (RJ: 1985)
Rajasthan
30.06.2023
06 Months
(from 01.07.2023 to
31.12.2023)
Dr. Sukhbir Singh 
Sandhu, IAS 
(UD: 1988)
Uttarakhand
31.07.2023
06 Months
(from 01.08.2013 to
31.01.2024)
c. 
There are as many as 57 instances since 2013 where extensions 
have been granted to superannuating Chief Secretaries which 
have been tabulated in the aﬃ  davit;
d. 
Section 45A, though a part of the deﬁ nition provisions of the 
amended Act, expressly recognises the power of appointment 
of the Central Government of the Chief Secretary of the NCTD;
e. 
Though the power of granting an extension to a member of an All 
India Service holding the post of Chief Secretary under Rule 16 
of the 1958 Rules is to be exercised by the Central Government 
on the recommendations of the State Government, in the case 
of the NCTD, the relevant cadre deploying the oﬃ  cers is the 
AGMUT cadre which is a Joint Cadre. Rule 2(1)(m) deﬁ nes the 
State Government in the case of a joint cadre to mean the Joint 
Cadre Authority14; and
f. 
The Government of India Allocation of Business Rules 1961 
provide, in relation to the Union Ministry of Home Aﬀ airs, that 
:
“(d) General Questions relating to public services in the Union 
Territories and service matters in so far as these fall within 
the purview of State Government relating to:
(i) 
the oﬃ  cers of Indian Administrative Service and 
Indian Police Service serving in connection with the 
aﬀ airs of the Union Territories;
14 Rule
2(1)(m): State Government means the State Government on whose cadre the 
member of the Service was borne immediately before retirement or death and in 
relation to a member of an All India Service borne on a joint cadre, the joint cadre 
Authority. 
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
(ii) NCT of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 
Lakshdweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar 
haveli Civil and Police Services (DANICS and 
DANIPS);
(iii) Pondicherry Civil and Police Services.”
12. The submissions which were urged by the Solicitor General have 
been supplemented by Mr Sanjay Jain, senior counsel. Mr. Jain submitted 
that:
a. 
The decision of this Court in the 2023 Constitution Bench makes 
it clear that the executive role of the NCTD does not extend to 
services related to public order, police and land keeping in view 
that Entries 1, 2 and 18 stand excluded from the legislative power 
of NCTD; 
b. 
The Chief Secretary indivisibly performs functions relating to 
Entries 1, 2 and 18;
c. 
Consequently, in the appointment of the Chief Secretary, as well 
as in the appointment of the Secretary (Home), Secretary (Land) 
and Commissioner of Police, the elected Government of NCTD 
would not have any control;
d. 
After the insertion of Article 239AA, a proposal for the 
appointment of oﬃ  cers to these four posts was invariably moved 
by the Lieutenant Government to the Central Government in 
the Ministry of Home Aﬀ airs in terms of Rule 55(2)(b) of the 
Transaction of Business Rules;
e. 
In terms of Rule 56, whenever a proposal is received under Rule 
55(2)(b) from the Lieutenant Governor, the Central Government 
would have to take the appropriate decision; and
f. 
Section 41 of the GNCTD Act deals with matters in
which the 
Lieutenant Governor may act in his sole discretion and even 
prior to the amendment, it was permissible for him to act without 
aid and advice in all matters falling outside the purview of the 
Legislative Assembly, namely Entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State 
List.
475
13. At this stage, it must be noted that the reference before the 
Constitution bench is pending and there is no stay on the operation of the 
amendment Act. Thus, only a prima facie view is formed on the merits of 
the rival submissions. 
14. In its decision in 2023 Constitution Bench, this Court held that :
a. 
The subject of ‘services’ falls within the ambit of the legislative 
and executive competence of NCTD under Entry 41 of the State 
List of the Seventh Schedule;
b. 
However, the legislative and executive power of NCTD over 
Entry 41 does not extend over services related to the excluded 
subjects of public order, police and land;
c. 
In the absence of a law conferring upon it executive power 
relating to any subject in the State List, the executive power of 
the Union Government covers only matters relating to the three 
entries which are excluded from the legislative domain of NCTD;
d. 
If Parliament enacts a law granting executive power on any 
subject which is within the domain of NCTD, the executive power 
of the Lieutenant Governor shall be modiﬁ ed to that extent as 
provided in the law;
e. 
The Lieutenant Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the 
Council of Ministers of NCTD in relation to matters which fall 
within the legislative domain of NCTD; and
f. 
NCTD has legislative power over services excluding public 
order, police and land. Hence, the Lieutenant Governor is bound 
by the decisions of GNCTD on services, save and except for the 
excluded
subjects and as modiﬁ ed by the law.
These principles have been culled out prima facie at this stage on an 
analysis of the observations of the judgment in 2023 Constitution Bench. 
15. Two issues fall for the consideration of this Court: ﬁ rstly, whether 
the Union Government has the unilateral power to appoint the Chief 
Secretary of NCTD; and secondly, whether the Union Government has the 
power to extend the service of the incumbent Chief Secretary.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
16. We will ﬁ rst deal with the issue of whether the Union Government 
has the unilateral power to appoint the Chief Secretary of NCTD. Rule 2(b) 
of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules 195415 deﬁ nes Cadre post 
as any of the posts speciﬁ ed under item 1 of each cadre in the Schedule to 
the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations 
195516. The 1955 Regulations mention Chief Secretary as one of the cadre 
posts. Rule 7 of the 1954 Rules states that all appointments to cadre posts 
in a joint cadre shall be made by the State Government concerned. The 
State Government is deﬁ ned in relation to a Joint cadre to mean the Joint 
Cadre Authority. Rule 11A of the 1954 Rules states that the power of the 
State Government , inter alia, under Rule 7 in relation to the members of 
the Service serving in connection with the aﬀ airs of any of the constituent 
States shall be exercised by the Government of that State, and State is 
deﬁ ned to include Union Territory17. The 2023 Constitution Bench judgment 
interpreted the above provisions and held that the GNCTD has the power 
to make appointments to cadre posts in NCTD:
“173. We shall take the example of the Indian Administrative Service 
(Cadre) Rules, 1954, which deal with the posting of IAS Oﬃ  cers. 
Rule 2(a) deﬁ nes “cadre oﬃ  cer” to mean a member of IAS. Rule 2(b) 
deﬁ nes “Cadre post” as any post speciﬁ ed under Item I of each cadre in 
the
Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre 
Strength) Regulations, 1955. Rule 2(c) deﬁ nes “State” to mean a State 
speciﬁ ed in the Schedule I to the Constitution and includes a Union 
Territory. Rule 2(d) deﬁ nes “State Government concerned”, in relation 
to a Joint cadre, to mean the Joint Cadre Authority. The constitution 
and composition of a “Joint Cadre Authority” is understood with 
reference to the All-India Services (Joint Cadre) Rules, 1972. The 
1972 Rules apply to a “Joint Cadre constituted for any group of States 
other than the Joint Cadre of Union Territories”. Rule 3 of the IAS 
(Cadre) Rules, 1954 provides for the constitution of cadres for each 
State or group of States “as a “State Cadre” or, as the case may be, a 
“Joint Cadre”. Rule 5 empowers the Central Government to allocate 
15 “1954 Rules’
16 “1955 Regulations”
17 Rule 2(c) of the 1955 Regulations
477
cadre oﬃ  cers to various cadres. In terms of Rule 5(1), the allocation 
of cadre oﬃ  cers to the various cadres shall be made by the Central 
Government in consultation with the State Government or the State 
Government concerned. Rule 7 stipulates that all appointments to cadre 
posts shall be made “on the recommendation of the Civil Services 
Board” — by the State Government “in the case of a State cadre”, 
and by the State Government concerned, as deﬁ ned in Rule 2(d), “in 
the case of a joint cadre”. Under Rule 11-A, the “Government of that 
State” is provided with powers to take decisions under Rule 7 (and 
other mentioned rules) in relation to the members of the Joint Cadre 
Service “serving in connection with the aﬀ airs of any of the Constituent 
States”. A combined reading of Rules 2, 7 and 11-A indicates that 
the postings within the State Cadre as well as Joint Cadre of a 
Constituent State shall be made by the “Government of that State”, 
that is, by the duly elected Government. In our case, it shall be the 
Government of NCTD. We accordingly hold that references to “State 
Government” in relevant Rules of All-India Services or Joint Cadre 
Services, of which NCTD is a part or which are in relation to NCTD, 
shall mean the Government of NCTD.” 
(emphasis supplied)
17. However, the scope of Rule 55(2)(b) of the Transaction of Business 
Rules must also be noticed. Rule 55(2)(b) requires the Lieutenant Governor, 
subject to any instructions which may be issued
by the Central Government, 
to make a prior reference to the Central Government of proposals for the 
appointment of Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Police, Secretary 
(Home) and Secretary (Lands). Rule 56 provides that when a matter has 
been referred by the Lieutenant Governor to the Central Government under 
Rule 55, further action shall not be taken except in accordance with the 
decision of the Central Government. Though the Government of NCTD is 
the appointing authority for all posts in NCTD in terms of the 1954 Rules, 
the Transaction of Business Rules places the appointments to the posts 
of Chief Secretary and Commissioners of Police, Secretary (Home) and 
Secretary (Lands) outside the competence of the GNCTD. 
18. The reason for this provision would emerge from the three excluded 
subjects of Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List 2 of the State List which fall outside 
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
the purview of the GNCTD. The excluded subjects being ‘Police’, ‘Public 
order’ and ‘Land’, the Commissioner of Police and the Secretaries In-charge 
of the Home and Land Departments are speciﬁ cally brought within the 
purview of those matters where the Lieutenant Governor has to make a prior 
reference to the Union Government. The Chief Secretary has, in addition, 
been brought within the purview of Rule 55(2)(d) for the reason that the 
Chief Secretary of the GNCTD exercises overall supervision and control 
over all the departments including the departments which are relatable to 
the excluded subjects.
19. Signiﬁ cantly, at this stage, it will be material to note that the 
amendments which have been made to the GNCTD Act 1991 by the insertion 
of Pat IV-A contain analogous provisions in clause (i) of Section 45A by 
excluding oﬃ  cers who are serving in connection with any subject matter 
whether fully or in part connected with Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List II (and 
Entries 64, 65 and 66 insofar as they relate to Entries 1, 2 and 18) from 
the ambit of the deﬁ nition of Group A oﬃ  cers. Likewise, while deﬁ ning 
the powers and functions of the National Capital Civil Service Authority 
in Section 45H, oﬃ  cers who are serving in connection with any subject 
matter, either fully or in part, connected with Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List 2 
are excluded speciﬁ cally.
20. The petitioners submit that the Lieutenant Governor has always
exercised the power under Rule 55(2) under the aid and advice of the Council 
of Ministers. In terms of Article 239-AA(4), the Lieutenant Governor shall 
exercise his functions with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in 
relation to matters with respect to which the Legislative Assembly has the 
power to make laws, except insofar as he is, by or under any law, required 
to act in his discretion. 
21. Section 41 of the GNCTD Act lists the matters on which the 
Lieutenant Governor may act at his discretion. The provision states 
that the Lieutenant Governor may act in his discretion: (a) on matters 
which are beyond the powers of the Legislative Assembly and where 
the President has delegated the powers and functions to the Lieutenant 
Governor in relation to such matters; and (b) on matters which by law 
require him to act in his discretion or where he is exercising judicial or 
quasi-judicial functions.
479
22. The question of whether the Lieutenant Governor should act on the 
aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while discharging the function 
under Rule 55(2)(b) must be answered in light of the following position 
of law:
a. 
The judgment of this Court in the 2023 Constitution Bench that 
the legislative and executive power of NCTD shall extend to 
services except services related to the excluded entries (that is, 
public order, police, and land); and 
b. 
The Lieutenant Governor is required to act on the aid and 
advice of the Council of Ministers only on matters over which 
the Legislative Assembly of NCTD has competence. Even with 
respect to such matters, the Lieutenant Governor may act on 
his discretion if the law provides so. [2023 Constitution Bench 
judgment, Article 239-AA(4) of the Constitution and Section 41 
of the GNCTD Act]
23. The Lieutenant Governor while exercising the power under Rule 
55(2)(b) is required to act at their discretion without the aid and advice of 
the Council of Ministers for the following reasons: 
a. 
The provision mandates the Lieutenant Governor to make a 
reference to the Central Government of every proposal which 
relates to the appointments stipulated in the provision. This is 
clear from the usage of the words “the Lieutenant Governor shall 
make a prior reference;
b. 
Rule 55(2) begins with the phrase “subject to any instructions 
which may from time to time be issued by the Central 
Government”. The exercise of power by
the Lieutenant Governor 
under Rule 55(2)(b) is subject to the control of the Central 
Government; 
c. 
As discussed above, Rule 55(2)(b) deals with proposals for the 
appointment of the Commissioner of Police and the Secretaries 
In-charge of the Home and Land Departments in addition to the 
Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary has been brought within 
the purview of Rule 55(2)(b) because the Chief Secretary of the 
GNCTD exercises overall supervision and control over all the 
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
departments including the departments which are relatable to the 
excluded subjects; and
d. 
The Central Government has a veto over the proposal in terms 
of Rule 56.
24. The position which emerges from the above analysis is that unlike 
other States, the GNCTD only has the power to propose a candidate for the 
appointment as the Chief Secretary. The Lieutenant Governor is bound to 
refer the proposal to the Central Government and the decision of the Central 
Government on the proposal is ﬁ nal. 
25. Section 45A(d) deﬁ nes the Chief Secretary to mean the Chief 
Secretary of the GNCTD “appointed by the Central Government”. At this 
stage, it may not be necessary to enquire into whether clause (d) of Section 
45A is purely a deﬁ nition section, as the petitioners submit, or whether 
it contains a substantive power of appointment, as is submitted by the 
respondents. At the present stage, it would suﬃ  ce to note that there can be 
no dispute about the basic position that the Chief Secretary, as the head of 
the administration, exercises jurisdiction of an administrative nature over the 
entirety of subjects which fall within the domain of the executive functions 
of GNCTD which would include those subjects (Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List 
II) over which the Legislative Assembly and the State Government do not 
have jurisdiction.
26. In the 2023 Constitution Bench judgment, this Court, while holding 
that the subject of services in
Entry 41 of List II falls within the domain of 
GNCTD, has nonetheless clariﬁ ed that this would not extend to control over 
services insofar as they pertain to the excluded subjects. In the very nature of 
things, it would not be possible or for that matter practicable to divide these 
functions of the Chief Secretary or bifurcate them between those areas which 
fall within the domain of GNCTD and those which lie outside. Nor can such 
a bifurcation be logically attempted based on the numerical strength of the 
number of administrative subjects which lie within or outside the province 
of GNCTD. Once it emerges that the Chief Secretary performs important 
functions, among other things, in relation to the excluded subjects as well, 
it would be farfetched to postulate that the Central Government is divested 
of the power to appoint the Chief Secretary.
481
27. The petitioners while referring to the observations of this Court in 
Royappa (supra) contend that the Central Government cannot unilaterally 
appoint the Chief Secretary because the Chief Secretary in addition to the 
subjects of land, police, and public order also assists the Government of 
NCTD on a variety of other matters which falls within the legislative and 
executive competence of NCTD. However, these are grounds which can be 
raised when the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of 
the 2023 Amendment Act is adjudicated. In view of the fact that this Court 
has not stayed the provisions of the NCT Amendment Act, this Court must 
adjudicate the controversy based on the position of law as it exists today. 
28. The petitioners seek that the Court to appoint one of the ﬁ ve senior 
most oﬃ  cers from the pool of oﬃ  cers who are serving in the AGMUT cadre 
and who has had the experience of having served as the Chief Secretary in 
the Government of NCTD. The relief sought by the petitioner is beyond 
the scope of powers exercisable by this Court. This Court cannot usurp the 
powers of the appointing authority conferred by law.
29. The issue which survives for consideration is as to whether the 
Central Government has the power to extend the service of an incumbent 
Chief Secretary. The Union Government, inter alia, relied upon the 
provisions of Rule 16 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules 1958. Dr Singhvi urged 
that the third proviso to Rule 16 clearly
stipulates that an extension of 
service can be granted to a person holding the post of Chief Secretary to a 
State Government on the recommendations made by the concerned State 
Government “with full justiﬁ cation and in public interest” with the prior 
approval of the Central Government. Hence, it was urged that the power 
of extension can be exercised only on the recommendation of the State 
Government which, in the present case, must mean, the GNCTD. 
30. On the other hand, an eﬀ ort has been made on behalf of the Union 
Government to submit that in a case involving a joint cadre, the expression 
State Government must mean the Joint Cadre Authority and bearing in 
mind the Transaction of Business Rules 1961 of the Union Government, 
it is the Ministry of Home Aﬀ airs which alone would exercise jurisdiction 
on general questions relating to public services in the Union Territories and 
service matters pertaining to IAS and IPS oﬃ  cers serving in connection with 
the aﬀ airs of the Union Territories.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
31. This submission of the Union Government has not found acceptance 
in the 2023 Constitution Bench judgment. Paragraph 173 of the judgment 
(extracted above) holds that the GNCTD would exercise jurisdiction over 
public services in NCTD. 
32. Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules is a general rule which is applicable to 
members of the service holding the post of Chief Secretary across all States. 
The provision does not make a distinction between the Chief Secretary 
serving in NCTD and the Chief Secretaries serving in other States though the 
procedure for the appointment of the Chief Secretary of NCTD is diﬀ erent 
from the procedure for the appointment of Chief Secretaries in other States 
in terms of the 1954 Rules read with the Transaction of Business Rules. The 
post of Chief Secretary in the GNCTD is a post entrusted with signiﬁ cant 
functional responsibilities including overall administrative control and 
supervision over subjects which stand excluded from the legislative domain 
and the executive powers of the GNCTD. In relation to Chief Secretaries who 
are appointed to the States, Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules contemplates that an 
extension can be granted with the prior approval of the State Government 
on the recommendation by the State Government with a “full justiﬁ cation” 
and in “public interest”. This provision has been made in relation to the role 
of the State Government where the Chief Secretaries perform functions in
relation to the States. The position of the Chief Secretary of the GNCTD 
is signiﬁ cantly distinct in that the Chief Secretary performs delegated 
executive functions which straddle both subjects which fall within the 
executive and legislative competence of GNCTD as well as those which 
lie outside. Consequently, the restrictions which operate in relation to the 
grant of extension under Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules in relation to the Chief 
Secretary of one of the State Governments would not stricto senso apply 
in relation to the GNCTD. Rule 16 undoubtedly would, however, apply in 
relation to the extension of service of such other oﬃ  cers of GNCTD whose 
functions do not extend to any of the subjects which are excluded, namely, 
Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List 2 and Entries 64, 65 and 66 insofar as thy are 
relatable to Entries 1, 2 and 18.
33. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that at 
this stage, bearing in mind the principles which have been enumerated in 
the judgment of this Court in 2023 Constitution Bench judgment, and the
483
subsequent developments which have taken place resulting in the enactment 
of the amendment to the GNCTD Act 1991, the decision of the Union 
Government to extend the services of the incumbent Chief Secretary for a 
period of six months cannot be construed to be violative of law. 
34. We, however, clarify that the analysis in this order is conﬁ ned to 
the evaluation of the case at the present stage without entering into any 
conclusive determination of the issues which are pending for adjudication 
before the Constitution Bench.
35. We also deem it appropriate to record a few observations on the 
role of the Chief Secretary. As observed by this Court in Royappa (supra), 
the post of the Chief Secretary is a “post of great conﬁ dence- a lynchpin in 
the administration.” This Court in the 2023 Constitution Bench judgment 
observed that civil servants are required to be politically neutral and must 
abide by the directions of the elected arm to give eﬀ ect to the principle 
underlying the triple-chain of collective responsibility. The post of a Chief 
Secretary is uniquely placed. The Chief Secretary performs functions which 
fall both within and outside the executive competence of the GNCTD. The 
Chief Secretary though appointed by the Central Government, must comply 
with the directions of the elected government over matters on which their 
executive competence extends. The actions (or inactions) of the Chief 
Secretary must not put the elected government at a
standstill. 
36. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above observations. 
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 
Headnotes prepared by: 
Writ petition disposed of.
Divya Pandey
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI]