New Delhi: The Supreme Court is likely to hear on Thursday the Delhi government’s plea demanding that the state government should have the power to appoint and transfer officials and not the Centre. The issue arose in wake of the top court’s July verdict defining the powers of the Lieutenant Governor (LG). Also Read - Sudarshan TV Row: 'Free Speech, Not Hatred,' Supreme Court Says Media Self-regulation System Toothless

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government has also demanded widening of the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Bureau to cases pertaining to the Centre as well. Also Read - 2021 Haridwar Kumbh: In a First, Number of Pilgrims to Be Restricted; Entry Passes to Be Issued

As far as the current dispute is concerned, a May 2015 notification of the Centre is the bone of contention. According to the notification of the Home Ministry, all service matters, public order, police and land-related matters fell within the jurisdiction of the L-G. It also included service matters of bureaucrats. Also Read - Regulate Digital Media First: Centre Tells SC in Affidavit Filed in Response to Pleas Against Sudarshan TV

The state government has also challenged a July 2015 notification of the Centre according to which the executive powers of the Delhi government were limited and the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Bureau was restricted to only Delhi government officials. Those officials under the Central Government were not covered under this.

On the other hand, the Centre has contended that it has an “extraordinary” position by the virtue of being the country’s capital.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had set aside Delhi government’s demands, giving verdict in Centre’s favour making the Lieutenant Governor responsible for the transfer and appointment of officials.

In its July verdict, the Supreme Court had ruled that LG Anil Baijal cannot act independently, and is bound and is bound by the state government’s aid and advice.

Specifying that there is no space for ‘anarchy’ in Delhi, the apex court said that the LG cannot obstruct the AAP government’s policy decisions, adding that he has no independent decision-making power and cannot behave as an obstructionist when the constitution gives primacy to representative of government.