in Clause (3) of Article 239AA, conveyed the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision to which it is made subject to, the high court has reasoned.
Therefore, Article 239 continues to apply.
How did the high court answer the Delhi Government’s claim that it wasn’t competent to hear the cases?
The GNCTD argued that under Article 131, only the Supreme Court could hear a federal dispute.
The GNCTD in response filed three applications with a prayer to stay all further proceedings in the cases heard by the high court until the Supreme Court ruled on an Original Suit about Article 131, which was to settle that exact question.
The GNCTD alleged that the Central Government was attempting to infringe upon its constitutional right to exercise its executive and legislative powers in terms of Article 239AA
Although the GNCTD raised objection to the jurisdiction of the high court at a belated stage of the hearing, the GNCTD claimed that there was no inherent jurisdiction in the high court to deal with federal disputes, and therefore, judgments rendered by a high court would be void from the get-go (ab initio).
The high court, however, rejected this contention, saying the cases before it did not raise a federal dispute. Nor did the case concern the existence of extent of a legal right of GNCTD
View the Original article