Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi has a unique constitutional position, being neither a full state nor a Union Territory. This has historically led to conflicts regarding the division of powers between the elected government and the L-G, who represents the central government. The persistent political tussle culminated in a legal battle, resulting in the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in July 2018. This judgment aimed to clarify the powers and responsibilities of both entities, but the question remains whether it has effectively settled the ongoing political friction and established a stable governance structure in Delhi.
Constitutional Framework & Background
Article 239AA of the Constitution, inserted by the 69th Amendment Act, 1991, grants special status to Delhi. It establishes a Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers responsible to it, but also empowers the President to act through the L-G. This dual structure has been the root cause of disputes, with differing interpretations of the extent of the L-G’s powers and the principle of collective responsibility.
The Supreme Court Judgment (July 2018)
The Supreme Court, in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, delivered a significant ruling. Key takeaways included:
- Principle of Federalism: The Court emphasized that Delhi, despite its special status, is a representative form of government and the principles of federalism should apply.
- L-G’s Powers: The Court clarified that the L-G is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The L-G should act as a facilitator and not obstruct the functioning of the elected government.
- Exceptions: The L-G could refer matters to the President in exceptional circumstances, particularly when a decision of the Council of Ministers concerns matters outside its competence or involves a conflict with the Union government.
- Collective Responsibility: The Court reaffirmed the principle of collective responsibility, meaning the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly.
Has the Judgment Settled the Tussle?
While the judgment provided clarity on the constitutional scheme, it hasn’t entirely settled the political tussle. Several factors contribute to this:
- Continued Disagreements: Despite the ruling, disagreements continue to arise over the interpretation of ‘aid and advice’ and the scope of the L-G’s discretionary powers.
- Administrative Issues: Disputes often center around administrative matters, such as appointments and control over departments, leading to friction.
- Political Motivations: The political relationship between the central government and the Delhi government often influences the implementation of the judgment.
- Subsequent Amendments: The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2021, introduced by the central government, further altered the power dynamics, granting the L-G greater powers, and was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Recent Developments & Supreme Court Intervention (May 2023)
In May 2023, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reaffirmed its 2018 judgment, striking down the 2021 amendment act. The court held that the amendment undermined the principles of federalism and representative governance. The court emphasized that the L-G does not have independent power to take decisions and must act on the aid and advice of the elected government. This recent intervention demonstrates the ongoing need for judicial oversight to maintain the balance of power.
| Aspect | Pre-2018 Judgment | Post-2018 Judgment (Initially) | Post-May 2023 Judgment |
|---|---|---|---|
| L-G’s Powers | Wide discretionary powers, often acting independently | Bound by aid and advice, limited discretionary powers | Reaffirmed limitations on discretionary powers; 2021 amendment struck down |
| Collective Responsibility | Often undermined by L-G’s independent actions | Reaffirmed, but implementation remained a challenge | Strengthened; L-G must act on Council of Ministers’ advice |
| Political Tussle | High level of conflict and obstruction | Reduced initially, but resurfaced | Continued, but with stronger judicial safeguards |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment, and its subsequent reaffirmation in 2023, undoubtedly clarified the constitutional position regarding Delhi’s governance. However, it hasn’t completely settled the political tussle. While the judgment provides a legal framework for a more harmonious relationship, the actual implementation depends heavily on the political will of both the central government and the Delhi government. Continued judicial intervention may be necessary to ensure the principles of federalism and representative governance are upheld in the NCT of Delhi.
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.