According to Live Law, the Delhi Government requested that the Supreme Court hear its appeal of the Center’s services law before the Article 370 case, but the Supreme Court denied the request.
Senior Attorney Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi filed the plea after the three-judge panel chaired by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said that the Delhi Government’s case will be sent to a Constitution Bench. Singhvi pushed for an early hearing before the Article 370 case, claiming that the delay in hearing the issue would cause a “paralysis” of the government in Delhi.
The Supreme Court set the beginning date for the hearing of a group of petitions contesting the weakening of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which deprived the former state of Jammu and Kashmir of its unique status, on July 20, 2023.
Singhvi requested that the Delhi case be given priority hearing, saying, “We would truly beg your lordships that this is a very brief point. Therefore, kindly accept it before 370 matters or postpone 370 matters and hear it first. My intelligent friends cannot disagree with that.
CJI DY Chandrachud, however, denied his motion and insisted that the Article 370 matter’s timetable will not change.
He emphasised that the counsels were already preparing for the hearings and that the court had already given notice of the hearing date.
“Dr. Singhvi, we won’t change the 370 matter’s scheduling at this time,” he stated. We’ve let it know. The counsels have been preparing. It is not appropriate for us to claim that we will not hear Article 370 after having previously said that we would.
In a last-ditch effort to convince the court, Dr. Singhvi tried to show how urgent the situation was. “No bureaucrats are taking orders,” he remarked.There were 437 consultants fired. Even if the conduct is legal, how does the governor have the authority to have them removed? to fire consultants that the NCT had hired?
The CJI did not budge from his decision to keep the Article 370 issue on the schedule, nevertheless. The Delhi Government’s case was subsequently referred by the Supreme Court to a five-judge Constitution Bench; a hearing date would be announced shortly.
