LEGAL ISSUE: The balance of power between the Lieutenant Governor and the elected government in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law.
Case Name: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India & Another
Judgment Date: July 4, 2018
Can a Union Territory have a government that truly represents the will of its people? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question in a landmark judgment. The core issue was the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution, which grants special status to the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT). This case is not just about legal interpretation; it’s about the essence of democracy, federalism, and the balance of power.
Date of the Judgment: July 4, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 606
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself, A.K. Sikri and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.) and Dr D Y Chandrachud, J (Concurring) and Ashok Bhushan, J (Concurring)
Case Background
The case arose from a series of disputes between the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Union of India, particularly concerning the powers of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) versus the elected government. The Government of NCT of Delhi challenged several notifications issued by the Union government and the LG, arguing that they undermined the authority of the elected government. These disputes touched upon various aspects of administration, including control over services, appointment of special public prosecutors, and the setting up of commissions of inquiry.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Delhi continues to be a Union Territory even after the 69th Amendment, and that the LG is not bound to act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This ruling was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 12.12.1911 | Delhi became the capital of India. |
| 1912 | The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 came into force. |
| 1915 | The Delhi Laws Act, 1915 empowered the Chief Commissioner to determine application of laws. |
| 26.01.1950 | Delhi became a Part C State. |
| 1951 | The Government of Part C States Act, 1951 was enacted. |
| 19.10.1956 | The Constitution of India (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 was passed, and Delhi became a Union Territory. |
| 1963 | The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 was enacted. |
| 1966 | The Delhi Administration Act, 1966 was enacted. |
| 20.08.1966 | Ministry of Home Affairs issued S.O. No. 2524. |
| 1987 | The Balakrishnan Committee was set up. |
| 1991 | The Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act was passed, inserting Articles 239AA and 239AB. |
| 2nd January, 1992 | The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 came into force. |
| 04.08.2016 | Delhi High Court delivered its judgment. |
| 15.02.2017 | Two Judge Bench of Supreme Court referred the matter to Constitution Bench. |
| 04.07.2018 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated August 4, 2016, held that Delhi continues to be a Union Territory even after the 69th Amendment. The High Court also ruled that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi is not bound to act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Several writ petitions were filed challenging various notifications issued by the GNCTD. The High Court ruled that the Lieutenant Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all matters. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the GNCTD filed appeals in the Supreme Court.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, noting the substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of Article 239AA, referred the matter to a Constitution Bench.
Legal Framework
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution, which was inserted by the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991. This Article grants special status to Delhi as the National Capital Territory.
Article 239AA(1) renames the Union Territory of Delhi as the National Capital Territory of Delhi and designates its administrator as the Lieutenant Governor.
Article 239AA(2) mandates a Legislative Assembly for the NCT, with members directly elected from territorial constituencies.
Article 239AA(3) defines the legislative powers of the Assembly, granting it authority over matters in the State and Concurrent Lists, except for public order, police, and land (and related entries). It also reserves the power of Parliament to make laws for Union Territories.
Article 239AA(4) establishes a Council of Ministers, headed by a Chief Minister, to aid and advise the LG, except where the LG is required to act in his discretion. It also includes a proviso for the LG to refer matters to the President in case of a difference of opinion.
Article 239AB allows the President to suspend the operation of Article 239AA in case of a failure of the constitutional machinery.
The Court also considered Article 239, which deals with the administration of Union Territories, and Article 246(4), which grants Parliament power to legislate for Union Territories.
Arguments
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant (GNCTD) |
|
|
| Respondents (Union of India and LG) |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:
✓ What is the nature and scope of the executive power of the Government of NCT of Delhi?
✓ What is the scope of the power of the Lieutenant Governor to refer a matter to the President under the proviso to Article 239AA(4)?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of executive power of GNCTD | The executive power of GNCTD is co-extensive with its legislative power. | The Court emphasized the importance of a representative government and the need for the elected government to exercise executive power over matters on which it can legislate. |
| Scope of LG’s power to refer matters to the President | The LG can refer matters to the President only under exceptional circumstances, and not routinely. | The Court held that the proviso to Article 239AA(4) is not a general norm, but an exception to the rule that the LG is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How Used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay [1951 SCR 228] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the concept of the spirit of the Constitution. | The spirit of the Constitution must be gathered from its language. |
| Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 85 | Supreme Court of India | Emphasized on the spirit of the Constitution. | The Constitution must be respected and not bypassed. |
| State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310 | Supreme Court of India | Highlighted that constitutional law must be illuminated by sociology and allied fields. | The Constitution is a social document and requires a spacious, social-science approach. |
| Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that any construction of constitutional provisions which conflicts with the constitutional purpose must be eschewed. | The true meaning and spirit of the Constitution must be upheld. |
| New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 339 | Supreme Court of India | Recognized that the Union Territory of Delhi is a class by itself. | Delhi has a unique constitutional status unlike other Union Territories. |
| R.C. Cooper v. U.O.I (AIR 1970 SC 564) and Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I (AIR 1978 SC 597) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for adopting a more purposive and organic method of interpretation. | Constitutional jurisprudence has undergone a sea change after these decisions. |
| Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. v. State of Punjab (AIR 1955 SC 549) and Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1974 SC 2192) | Supreme Court of India | Cited to argue that an executive government should be able to exercise all executive powers necessary to fulfill the needs. | The Governor has to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. |
| Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N. Sanjiva Reddy and others (1970) 2 SCC 272 | Supreme Court of India | The word ‘anything’ has been said to mean ‘everything’. | The phrase “any matter” has to be interpreted to mean “every matter.” |
| State of Bihar and another v. Bal Mukund Sah and others (2000) 4 SCC 640 | Supreme Court of India | Acknowledged the representative form of governance. | The people are entitled to exercise their sovereignty through the legislature. |
| Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed constitutional morality and the need for checks on power. | Constitutional morality acts as a check on governmental agencies. |
| Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others (2015) 3 SCC 467 | Supreme Court of India | Explained that constitutional morality is the pillar stone of good governance. | Democracy expects prevalence of genuine orderliness, propriety, discipline and sanctity. |
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and others (AIR 1993 SC 477) | Supreme Court of India | Emphasized the importance of constitutional objectivity. | The Court should adopt a pragmatic and realistic manner. |
| R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India and others (AIR 1993 SC 1804) | Supreme Court of India | Explained that the spirit of the Constitution has its own significance. | The words of the Constitution should be read in the light of the avowed purpose and spirit of the Constitution. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| GNCTD has exclusive executive power over all matters except those in the excluded list. | The Court held that the executive power of the GNCTD is co-extensive with its legislative power, but is subject to the proviso to Article 239AA(4). |
| The LG is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. | The Court held that the LG is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except when he decides to refer the matter to the President under the proviso of Article 239AA(4). |
| The LG can only refer matters to the President when the Council of Ministers transgresses the areas constitutionally prescribed to it. | The Court held that the proviso to Article 239AA(4) is not to be restricted to only specified areas and the LG can make a reference on ‘any matter’. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The Court relied on Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. v. State of Punjab [AIR 1955 SC 549] and Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1974 SC 2192] to emphasize that the executive government should have the power to fulfill the needs of the situation.
✓ The Court referred to Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N. Sanjiva Reddy and others [ (1970) 2 SCC 272] to explain that the word ‘anything’ means ‘everything’.
✓ The Court cited Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay [1951 SCR 228] to clarify that the spirit of the Constitution must be gathered from its language.
✓ The Court mentioned Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India [(1971) 1 SCC 851] to emphasize the spirit of the Constitution.
✓ The Court referred to State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas [(1976) 2 SCC 310] to highlight that constitutional law must be illuminated by sociology and allied fields.
✓ The Court cited Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 441] to emphasize that any construction of constitutional provisions which conflicts with the constitutional purpose must be eschewed.
✓ The Court relied on New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab [(1997) 7 SCC 339] to recognize that the Union Territory of Delhi is a class by itself.
✓ The Court considered R.C. Cooper v. U.O.I [AIR 1970 SC 564] and Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I [AIR 1978 SC 597] for adopting a more purposive and organic method of interpretation.
✓ The Court relied on State of Bihar and another v. Bal Mukund Sah and others [(2000) 4 SCC 640] to acknowledge the representative form of governance.
✓ The Court mentioned Manoj Narula v. Union of India [(2014) 9 SCC 1] to discuss constitutional morality and the need for checks on power.
✓ The Court cited Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others [(2015) 3 SCC 467] to explain that constitutional morality is the pillar stone of good governance.
✓ The Court referred to Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and others [AIR 1993 SC 477] to emphasize the importance of constitutional objectivity.
✓ The Court relied on R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India and others [AIR 1993 SC 1804] to explain that the spirit of the Constitution has its own significance.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was guided by several factors:
✓ The democratic nature of the Constitution and the paradigm of representative participation.
✓ The need to interpret the Constitution in a manner that does not result in an illogical outcome.
✓ The importance of constitutional pragmatism and the need to sustain the values of democracy.
✓ The principle of collective responsibility, which is essential for a cabinet system of government.
✓ The need to maintain a balance between the powers of the Union and the States in a federal structure.
✓ The unique status of Delhi as a Union Territory with a special status.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Democratic Principles | 30% |
| Federal Balance | 25% |
| Constitutional Morality | 20% |
| Practical Governance | 15% |
| Unique Status of Delhi | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning can be logically represented as follows:
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that:
✓ The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except when he decides to refer the matter to the President under the proviso to Article 239AA(4).
✓ The Lieutenant Governor can refer matters to the President only under exceptional circumstances, and not routinely.
✓ The executive power of the Government of NCT of Delhi is co-extensive with its legislative power, subject to the proviso to Article 239AA(4).
The Court emphasized the importance of a representative government and the need for the elected government to exercise executive power over matters on which it can legislate.
The Court also highlighted the special status of Delhi as a Union Territory, and the need to balance the interests of the Union government with the democratic aspirations of the people of Delhi.
The Court quoted the following passages from the judgment:
“While interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, the safe and most sound approach is to read the words of the Constitution in the light of the avowed purpose and spirit of the Constitution so that it does not result in an illogical outcome which could have never been the intention of the Constituent Assembly or of the Parliament while exercising its constituent power.”
“Therefore, a constitutional court, while adhering to the language employed in the provision, should not abandon the concept of the intention, spirit, the holistic approach and the constitutional legitimate expectation which combinedly project a magnificent facet of purposive interpretation.”
“The Court should pose a question to itself whether a straight, literal and textual approach would annihilate the sense of the great living document which is required to be the laser beam to illumine. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the constitutional courts should protect the sense and spirit of the Constitution taking aid of purposive interpretation as that is the solemn duty of the constitutional courts as the final arbiters of the Constitution.”
There were no dissenting opinions in the judgment.
The Court did not lay down any new doctrines or principles but clarified the existing position of law.
Key Takeaways
✓ The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in matters where the Delhi Legislative Assembly has the power to make laws.
✓ The Lieutenant Governor can refer matters to the President only in exceptional circumstances, not routinely.
✓ The executive power of the Delhi government is co-extensive with its legislative power, subject to the proviso of Article 239AA(4).
✓ The judgment emphasizes the need for a harmonious relationship between the Lieutenant Governor and the elected government.
Directions
The Court directed that the matters be placed before the appropriate regular bench for hearing, after answering the constitutional questions.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies the scope of Article 239AA, emphasizing the need to balance the powers of the Union government and the democratic aspirations of the people of Delhi. The judgment highlights the importance of the principles of collective responsibility and aid and advice in a cabinet form of government. It also reinforces the need for a purposive interpretation of the Constitution to achieve the goals of a democratic republic. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except when he decides to refer the matter to the President under the proviso to Article 239AA(4). The judgment clarifies the ambit of executive powers of the GNCTD and the power of the LG to differ with the Council of Ministers. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment is a significant step in clarifying the relationship between the Lieutenant Governor and the elected government in Delhi. The Court has emphasized the importance of democratic principles and the need to balance the powers of the Union government with the aspirations of the people of Delhi. The judgment is a reminder that the Constitution is a living document that must be interpreted in a manner that promotes the values of democracy, federalism, and the rule of law.