Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The 69th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1991 was a landmark legislation aimed at giving full statehood to Delhi. However, it stopped short of granting complete statehood, creating a unique administrative structure. This has led to a long-standing power struggle between the elected Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Lieutenant Governor (LG), who represents the Central Government. Recent conflicts, particularly concerning administrative control and legislative competence, have brought this issue to the forefront, culminating in Supreme Court interventions. The question of whether this represents a new trend in Centre-State relations warrants careful consideration.
The 69th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1991: Essentials
The 69th Amendment introduced Article 239AA in the Constitution, dealing specifically with the Union Territory of Delhi. Key provisions included:
- Legislative Assembly: Provided for a Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers for Delhi.
- Limited Legislative Powers: The Assembly was granted legislative powers over matters listed in the State List and Concurrent List (excluding entries specifically reserved for the Centre – Public Order, Police, Land).
- Lieutenant Governor’s Role: The LG was appointed by the President and vested with significant discretionary powers, including the power to refer matters to the President for decision.
- No Full Statehood: Delhi remained a Union Territory, not a full-fledged state.
Anomalies and Conflicts
Several ambiguities within Article 239AA have contributed to the ongoing conflicts:
Ambiguity Regarding ‘Aid and Advice’
The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the LG’s obligation to act on the ‘aid and advice’ of the Council of Ministers. The LG has often asserted independent authority, particularly in matters of administration, arguing that the ‘aid and advice’ clause doesn’t bind them in all cases. This has been challenged by the GNCTD, which contends that the LG must generally act on the advice of the elected government, mirroring the constitutional scheme in other states.
Discretionary Powers of the LG
The LG’s discretionary powers, while intended to safeguard the interests of the Union, have been perceived as a tool to circumvent the elected government’s authority. For example, the LG’s power to refer bills to the President has been used to delay or block legislation passed by the Assembly.
Control over Services
A major point of contention has been the control over administrative services, including the All India Services officers posted in Delhi. The GNCTD has argued for control over these services to effectively implement its policies, while the Centre, through the LG, has maintained that it retains control to ensure efficient administration and accountability.
Judicial Interventions
The Supreme Court, in several rulings (most notably in 2018 and 2023), has attempted to clarify the constitutional position. The 2018 judgment emphasized that the LG should act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in exceptional circumstances. The 2023 judgment further clarified the LG’s powers, particularly regarding control over services, establishing the elected government’s authority in most administrative matters. However, disputes continue to arise due to differing interpretations.
A New Trend in Indian Federal Politics?
The Delhi situation could potentially signal a new trend in Centre-State relations, characterized by:
- Increased Central Intervention: The Centre’s assertive role in Delhi, through the LG, reflects a broader tendency to exert greater control over states, particularly those governed by opposition parties.
- Erosion of Cooperative Federalism: The conflicts highlight a weakening of the spirit of cooperative federalism, where the Centre and states work together in a spirit of mutual respect and accommodation.
- Judicial Activism: The frequent recourse to judicial intervention suggests a growing reliance on the courts to resolve Centre-State disputes, indicating a breakdown in political consensus.
- Challenges to Subnational Autonomy: The Delhi case raises concerns about the extent of autonomy granted to subnational entities, particularly Union Territories, and the potential for the Centre to undermine their democratic governance.
However, it’s crucial to note that the Delhi situation is unique due to its status as the national capital. Extrapolating this to all Centre-State relations would be an oversimplification. Nevertheless, the trend of increased central intervention and the resulting conflicts warrant careful monitoring.
Conclusion
The 69th Amendment, while intended to empower Delhi, created inherent ambiguities that have fueled a protracted power struggle. The conflicts between the elected government and the LG underscore the challenges of reconciling the principles of federalism with the unique administrative requirements of the national capital. While it’s premature to declare a definitive shift in Indian federal politics, the Delhi case serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the need for greater clarity in Centre-State relations and a renewed commitment to cooperative federalism to prevent further erosion of subnational autonomy.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.