Authored By: Tanvir Uddin Molla
Shyambazar Law College
Case Name: Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India.
Equivalent Citations: 2023 SCC Online SC 306
Case Number: W.P.( C ) no. 678/2023
Acts Involved: Constitution of India, 1950
Important Provisions: Article 239AA
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices: M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha
Plaintiff: Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Respondents: Union of India
Judgement Date: May 11, 2023
FACTS OF THE CASE :
- The case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (2023) is a significant legal battle that centers around the distribution of powers between the elected government of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi and the Union government of India. The roots of this conflict lie in the unique constitutional status of Delhi, which, unlike other states and Union Territories in India, possesses a legislative assembly with limited powers.
- The case emerges from the interpretation and application of Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution, introduced by the 69th Amendment Act, 1991. Article 239AA provides Delhi with a special status, granting it a legislative assembly with the power to make laws on all subjects in the State List and Concurrent List, except for matters related to land, police, and public order, which remain under the jurisdiction of the Union government.
- The elected government of Delhi, led by the Chief Minister, contended that its powers were being undermined by the Lieutenant Governor (LG), who is appointed by the President of India and acts as the representative of the Union government. The core issue in the case was whether the LG had the authority to override decisions made by the elected government of Delhi and refer any matter to the President for resolution. This led to repeated clashes between the Delhi government and the LG over the extent of executive powers and administrative control.
- The root cause of the issues arises due to the removal of Entry 41 of the State List from the Government of NCTD’s sphere of influence. Entry 41 of the State List is related to ‘provisions relating to State Public Service .
- In 2018, the Same case was presented in front of a bench consisting of C.J. Dipak Misra, J. A.K. Sikri, J. A.M. Khanwilkar, J. D.Y. Chandrachud & J. Ashok Bhushan. The point of contention was how to interpret Article 239 AA of the Indian Constitution specifically concerning the notice from 2015.
- As an outcome the Court reiterated that in light of Article 239AA and the 2018 Constitution Bench ruling the LG is obligated to heed the counsel and advise of the NCTD Council of Ministers about issues falling under NCTD’s legislative purview. Furthermore under the applicable Rules any reference to “Lieutenant Governor” with regard to services must signify LG acting on behalf of GNCTD .
- After determining how Article 239-AA should be interpreted the petitions for review were ordered to be listed before a regular Bench for the purpose of resolving the particular concerns. A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., a 2-judge bench rendered two different rulings in 2019. Regarding whether “services” have been excluded from the legislative and executive branches of the GNCTD under Article 239-AA(3)(a), the judges couldn’t agree. The majority view in the 2018 Constitutional bench ruling did not understand the words insofar as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories according to Justice Ashok Bhushan’s divided finding from 2019.
ISSUES RAISED :
- Whether Delhi’s unique status as the national capital necessitates a different approach in determining the boundaries of authority between the elected government and the Union government?
- Whether the Lieutenant Governor’s obligation to act on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers includes all matters except those specifically reserved for the Union government? Whether the Lieutenant Governor’s discretion to refer matters to the President under Article 239AA (4) allows for independent decision-making in cases of significant disagreement with the Council of Ministers?
- Whether the distribution of powers between the central government and the Delhi government adheres to the principles of cooperative federalism, ensuring a balanced relationship?
ARGUMENTS BETWEEN Government of NCT of Delhi VS Union Of India :
Government of NCT of Delhi :
The Plaintiff the Government of NCT of Delhi contended that the elected government should have substantial control over the administrative and legislative affairs of Delhi barring the explicitlyreserved domains of land, police, and public order. They argued that under Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution the legislative assembly of Delhi along with the Council of Ministers has the authority to make decisions on all other matters The Plaintiff asserted that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) should act on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers in these areas ensuring that the democratic mandate of the people of Delhi is respected. They emphasized that excessive interference by the LG, who acts as the representative of the Union government undermines the principles of democratic governance and the federal structure of the Constitution.
The Delhi government highlighted that the LG’s discretionary power to refer matters to the President should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where there is a substantial difference of opinion. They argued that frequent use of this power by the LG to override the decisions of the elected government leads to administrative paralysis and hampers effective governance. The appellants sought a clear delineation of powers to allow the elected government to function independently and fulfill its mandate to the people of Delhi.
Union Of India :
The respondents representing the Union of India argued that the unique status of Delhi as the national capital necessitates a significant oversight role for the central government. They contended that under Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution the Lieutenant Governor (LG) retains substantial powers to ensure the smooth administration and safeguard national interests.
The Union government emphasized that the LG has discretionary authority to act independently of the Council of Ministers particularly in matters where there is a substantial difference of opinion. They argued that the LG’s power to refer matters to the President is crucial for maintaining checks and balances preventing potential misuse of power by the Delhi government and ensuring decisions align with national policies and security considerations.
The respondents also highlighted that the areas like land, police, and public order, which are critical to national governance must remain under the exclusive control of the Union government. They contended that this control is essential to maintain uniformity, stability, and security in the national capital, which houses key government institutions and foreign embassies.
Overall the Union government sought to maintain a delicate balance where the LG’s oversight would act as a safeguard against any unilateral actions by the Delhi government that might contradict broader national interests.
JUDGMENT :
The Supreme court of India delivered a landmark judgment which resolved the long standing tussle between the elected government of Delhi and the lieutenant Governor representing the central government over the control of services specifically the power to appoint and transfer the bureaucrats in the national capital of Delhi .
The Bench concluded that the Government of the national capital of Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative service except for the matter of police, public order , and land .
The court clearly stated that the services came within the orbit of the Delhi Government as per Article 239AA of the Indian constitution except for police, land, and public order , which are under the control of the Union Government .
The court also provided that the lieutenant governor is bound by “ aid and advise “ of the council of ministers of the Delhi government . It cannot act independently . This was the victory of the Delhi government as the court rejected the claim of union government control over the services .
This judgment provided the detailed interpretation of Article 239AA of the constitution , Which provided special status to Delhi with a unique governance structure as a union territory with an elected legislative assembly and council of ministers .
RATIONALE OF THE CASE :
The bench concluded that with the exception of matters pertaining to Public law, Police and land. The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive jurisdiction over administrative services provided within the boundaries of the National Capital. Furthermore with the exception of public order, law enforcement, and land, the Lieutenant Governor must follow any decisions made by the Delhi administration regarding operations. Nonetheless the National Capital Territory of Delhi will continue to have authority over the legislative and executive branches concerning services like the Joint Cadre Services as well as the Indian Administrative Services, which are essential for the daily running of the area and the execution of policies.
The Court emphasized that the LG is generally bound by the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers in matters that fall within the legislative competence of the Delhi Assembly. However the LG has the authority to refer matters to the President in cases where there is a substantial difference of opinion with the Council of Ministers. This provision acts as a check on the Delhi government’s powers but should not be used to paralyze its functioning or undermine its autonomy.
The judgment highlighted the principle of cooperative federalism stressing that the Union and state governments should work in harmony to achieve common goals. The Court underscored the need for a collaborative approach in the governance of Delhi recognizing its unique status and the necessity of maintaining a delicate balance between state autonomy and central .
CONCLUSION :
The Supreme Court ruled that the Government of NCT of Delhi has legislative and executive power over all administrative services, except for those related to public order, police, and land. The Lieutenant Governor must act on the “aid and advice” of the Delhi government in these matters and is bound by their decisions, but can refer cases to the President if there is a significant disagreement. The judgment established a framework of cooperative federalism for Delhi’s governance, balancing the autonomy of the elected government with the unique status of the capital.
