The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave its approval for the Central government to extend the term of the current Delhi Chief Secretary, Naresh Kumar. The decision came after Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, expressed their preliminary view that the extension appeared to be legally sound.

The court's ruling was in response to a petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government, which contested the extension of Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar's tenure. The bench noted that, considering constitutional provisions and the subsequent enactment of the Services Act, the Central government's decision to extend the chief secretary's services for six months did not seem to violate the law.

Emphasizing the unique role of the Delhi Chief Secretary, the court pointed out that the position involves responsibilities beyond the jurisdiction of the Delhi government. Therefore, the rules governing the extension of tenure for AGMUT cadre Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers, which apply to officers under the control of the Delhi government, were deemed not directly applicable to the Chief Secretary.

The court clarified that its assessment was preliminary and did not constitute a final resolution of the ongoing dispute between the Delhi government and the Central government. This dispute revolves around the authority to manage the transfer, posting, and disciplinary matters concerning civil servants in Delhi, including a challenge to the validity of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023.

During the hearing, the bench raised questions about the necessity of extending the Chief Secretary's term, directing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to explain the government's focus on appointing a specific individual to the role. The court requested evidence of the government's authority to extend the chief secretary's tenure.

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, highlighted the significance of the Supreme Court's past judgments, emphasizing the need for the Central government to involve the Delhi government in appointments. Regarding tenure extensions, Singhvi argued that the All India Services Rules specify that extensions should be granted by the respective State government.

Solicitor General Mehta countered by asserting that extending tenures is a routine practice, citing 57 instances in the last decade. He claimed that the authority to extend the Chief Secretary's tenure rests with the Central government. Singhvi countered by noting that only one of the mentioned instances related to the Chief Secretary of Delhi, and that occurred during President's rule. He insisted on a fresh selection process involving the Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Governor.

After considering arguments from both sides, the Court provided an initial opinion that, prima facie, the Central government has the authority to appoint and extend the tenure of the Chief Secretary of Delhi. However, this does not constitute a final resolution of the issues pending before a Constitution Bench of the court.