Published on: 5th May, 2025
Authored by: Saanya Vashishtha, Shreya Tiwari, Digvijay Pathak
Background
Article 1 of the Indian Constitution states that the territory of India shall comprise of States, Union Territories, and other such territories as acquired by India. The National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi was given the status of the capital in 1911 under the British Rule. Following the independence of India, the capital was reinstated as the Capital of the Republic of India which held its first legislative assembly election in 1952 after the enactment of the Government of Part C States Act, 1951 wherein the government in Delhi was prohibited from legislating over the matter related to police, public force, the constitution and the power of the municipal corporation and the land of the union government which are situated in Delhi. However, the passing of the sixty seventh constitutional amendment which led to the States Reorganization Act[1], the NCT was given the status of a Union Territory due to the political and administrative consideration while the legislative assembly was abolished. The Delhi Administration Act[2] was substantial step in building Delhi as a special UT as it allowed for the representative government to be set up. Further, taking into account the recommendations of the Balakrishnan Committee, Delhi was given the special status through the sixty-nineth amendment of the constitution which brought in the articles 239 AA[3] and 239 AB[4] which further led to the enactment of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act[5]. This led to demarcations being made between the roles and responsibilities of the LG and the legislative government of Delhi through various cases brought before court and the constant tussle between the LG and the Delhi government.
Facts
The present case was brought before the Delhi HC wherein the issue related to demarcation of roles and procedures were heard before the court. The Delhi High court in the present case decided that as the President of India has the charge of governing the UT under the article 239[6] which can be done enforced by them through an administrator, that is the LG in this case. Thus, the Delhi HC held that since NCT is also a UT it shall be governed by the President. An appeal was heard before the division bench of the SC wherein it was held since the case brought before substantial questions which were had great constitutional significance; thus the matter should be heard by a constitutional bench under the article 145 (3)[7].
Issue
The issues brought before the court in the present case were substantial questions of law which have a great constitutional significance as they deal with the overlapping themes of federalism and the basic structure doctrine. The questions formed by the court are as follows-
- Whether Delhi is a State?
- What is the status of Delhi as a territory of India if it can not be classified as a state?
- Whether the LG of Delhi has to abide by the aid and the advice of the Council of Ministers as given under the article 239 AA (4).[8]
- What are the matter which can be referred to the President by the LG of Delhi?
- Whether it is necessary for the LG to concur with the opinion of the legislative assembly as given under the Government of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi[9].
Analysis
The judges in the present case held that the judgment to be given in the present case shall be a test of the constitutional structure as they shall have balance the constitutional democracy as envisioned under our constitution along with the participation of the people which is also the essence of the democracy. In order to do so the court has referred to the “spirit of the constitution” as given under the Keshvan Madhav Menon case[10] which provides for the flexible interpretation[11] of the statute in a manner that protects the democratic foundation laid by the courts. The court further held that the law in the present case cannot be seen in isolation as the law is influenced by politics and power.[12]
Taking the above process forward, the court first tries to lay down the basic principles of the constitution or the representative governance. Firstly, the court adjudges that in order for the court to give the correct judgment it is necessary for the courts to take into account both the constitutional morality as well as the constitutional objectivity. While the Constitutional morality is the morality that is based on the lines of the constitution or has inherent constitutional values, the constitutional objectivity is the talks about the system of checks and balances that is engraved in our constitution while talking about the roles and responsibilities that the different organs of the government hold.[13] Acknowledging the same, the courts have held that in the representative democracy in India, the people are the sovereign as they are the ones who exercise their universal adult franchise and have the right to showcase their problems to the elected representative which brings accountability and responsibility along with the power so gained.
Further, the court has elaborated on the federal functioning of our democracy. Democracy can be described as a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” which can also be seen throughout our constitution starting from our Preamble.[14] The court also lays down the definition of the federal structure of the government which can be defined as the form of government wherein the power of the government is divided at different levels which can also be seen in India through the division of power that takes place between the centre, state, and the municipalities. However, the definition of federalism has evolved and the modern jurists believe federalism to a method of division of powers wherein the two divisions although lay in the same sphere they are independent of each other and coordinate in order to deliver better governance. Addressing the same, the court has held that the constitution is of a federal structure and to substantiate the same, the constitutional debates have been referred wherein Dr. Ambedkar stated that the constitution creates a partition between the states and the centre while also making them independent of each other as well as can be considered as co-equals.[15] However, the courts have acknowledged the quasi-federal layer to our constitution wherein even though the centre and state have clear demarcations on authority, the centre has more power as compared to the states and the constitution is more centrally inclined in order to protect the state from secession as was also justified by Dr. Ambedkar.[16] Acknowledging the same, the courts have stated that the quasi-federal nature of the constitution was never intended to come in the way of the functioning of the state. Thus, the courts said that the collaborative federalism should be followed wherein the union and state governments should come together in order to achieve the common objective and should avoid conflicts. The courts also addressed the pragmatic federalism present in constitution which is the bent of the constitution on the principle of permissible practicality which can also be seen under the article 3, emergency provisions, etc.[17] The court addressing this stated that there is a need for a federal balance wherein the there is a need to exercise deference and have mutual respect in order to work together.
The court further addressing the special status of the NCT has stated that under the Indian Constitution different UT have been placed and given different status. This can be seen through the article 239A being limited to Puducherry and being given a different status as compared to other UT while the articles 239 AA and 239AB are specific to Delhi. This was also held in the New Delhi Municipal Corporation case[18] wherein Delhi was given the special status through the power and authority that the elected government has over law making under the state list and the concurrent list unlike the rest of the UT which don’t have the same provision.
The court has further on the question of whether it is essential for the LG to be bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers stated that reading the article 239AA (4) the LG is bound to take the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and in case of a disagreement can refer it to the President who shall give a binding decision on the same.
An analysis of the article 239 AA (4) and the Transaction of Business of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Rules of 1993, it was held that the LG must not refer every matter to the President but only matters of significant importance of the state or the UT. Further deciding the last question through the same statutes, the judges states while the previous laws had the word concur, there is no mention of the same in the present laws, thus it is not necessary for the LG to concur but needs to be taken in consultation.
Held
The court in the present case on the matter of whether Delhi a state or not held unanimously that the Delhi is not to be considered as a state. Secondly, on the question of status of Delhi, while Justice Mishra and Justice Chandrachud held that while Delhi is not a state, it does hold a special status. However, Justice Bhushan held that Delhi is a UT. Thirdly, on the question of whether the LG was bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the three judges unanimously held that the LG was bound to listen to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. On what matter should be referred to the President, the judges unanimously held that all matter must not be referred to the President. Justice Chandrachud held that only the matters which are of Significant national interest and no agreement can be reached between the LG and the Council of Ministers should be referred to the President. While Justice Bhushan held that only the matters which are necessary in order to safeguard the interest of the UT should be referred to the President. Lastly, on the question of if the concurrence of LG is necessary in order for the law to pass, the judges unanimously held that while the concurrence is not necessary, it is necessary for the LG to be kept in loop.
References:
[1] 1956.
[2] 1966.
[3] Constitution of India 1960.
[4] Ibid.
[5] 1991.
[6] Constitution of India 1960.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] 1991.
[10] [1951] SCR 228.
[11] Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr [1971] 1 SCC 85.
[12] State of Kerala and Anr. v. N.M. Thomas and Ors [1976] 2 SCC 310.
[13] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors. [1993] AIR 477.
[14] Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra [1980] AIR 1362.
[15] Constitutional Assembly Debates.
[16] Constitutional Assembly Debates.
[17] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [1994] 3 SCC 1.
[18] New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab [1997] 7 SCC 339.
