Centre wants to appoint officers to make Delhi govt uncomfortable: Sibal

New Delhi : A day after the six-month extension in service was granted to Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar, senior leader Kapil Sibal said that this went beyond 2024 Lok Sabha elections and Centre wanted to appoint officers to make the state government uncomfortable.

In a post on X, Sibal, a Rajya Sabha MP and an eminent lawyer, said, “Delhi Chief Secretary. Supreme Court grants six months extension to him. Takes us beyond 2024 Lok Sabha elections.”

“That’s all that the Centre wanted : Appoint officers to make Delhi governments days uncomfortable,” Sibal added.

His remarks came a day after the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an official order approving the extension in service for Naresh Kumar, an IAS officer of the AGMUT cadre and currently serving as Delhi Chief Secretary.

“The Competent Authority has granted approval for the extension, allowing Kumar to continue in his role as Chief Secretary for an additional period of six months.

“The extension is effective from December 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, in accordance with Rule 16(1) of the All India Services (Death Cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1953,” the order read.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that the Centre has the power to extend Kumar’s services for a period of six months.

“We have come to the conclusion that at this stage…..the decision of the Union government to extend the services of incumbent Chief Secretary for a period of six months, cannot be construed to be violative of law or constitutional distribution of power between the Union and the government of NCT of Delhi,” noted a Bench presided over by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud in its order.

The petition filed by the Delhi government had pleaded that it was always ‘exclusively’ the elected government which appointed the Chief Secretary.

In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court in a bid to give a “workable solution” had asked the Union government to give a list of five senior bureaucrats and the Delhi Government may “pick one name” out of those suggested by the Centre.

It had said that doing so would meet the “concerns of the Union government” and at the same time, “foster a degree of confidence in the officer in the elected arm of the state”.