The court however gave the Delhi government liberty to move in appeal in case the High Court verdict was not in its favour.

Terming the conduct of the Delhi government as anomalous, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government’s plea to restrain the Delhi High Court from pronouncing its verdict on a Delhi government plea for full Statehood.

The High Court had reserved its order on May 24, following which, the Delhi government rushed to the Supreme Court, this time saying that High Court has no power to decide the issue as it pertained to a ‘classic’ federal dispute between the Centre and a State.

Only the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 131 to hear the dispute, the Delhi government argued in its petition.

Throwing out the petition, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit asked the Delhi government about the “anomaly” in its conduct.

“You were the one who knocked on the doors of the Delhi High Court and now you don't want it to decide especially after it having reserved its verdict?" Justice Misra asked.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, for the Delhi government, acknowledged the court’s observation, but said they did not want the High Court to decide on merits. Instead, she said the High Court verdict should be confined to the limited question of whether the HC had jurisdiction or not to decide this “federal dispute.”

“Why should we tell the High Court to decide this issue or that? Every court in this country has the independence to decide cases within the constitutional framework,” Justice Misra said. At this point, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi for the Centre submitted the High Court was only complying with a Supreme Court order of April 12, 2016, asking it to pronounce judgment in the ongoing power tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre by end of July.

“This petition is totally misconceived. It was on the basis of their [Delhi government] petition that the Supreme Court had asked the Delhi High Court to pronounce judgment by end of July. The HC is only complying with your order. Now they have a problem with that too,” Mr. Rohatgi asked. “This court should not spend time on these sort of things,” Mr. Rohatgi added.