STATE (NCT OF DELHI) V. UOI (2018) 8 SCC 501

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) V. UOI (2018) 8 SCC 501

 

FACTS

In April 2015, Najeeb Jung, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi at the time, stated that he was not obligated to share information about Police, Land, and Public Order with the Chief Minister's office in accordance with any law. The Home Ministry supported this position, asserting that these three areas were solely under the LG's jurisdiction and not subject to the principle of aid and advice. Various conflicts, including disputes over the Anti-Corruption Branch's authority and the establishment of investigative commissions, led to tensions between the LG and the Chief Minister of Delhi.

 

ISSUES:

• Whether the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) or the Lieutenant Governor has legislative and executive control over matters listed under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

 

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT:

The appellants contended that Delhi's unique status in the Indian Constitutional Scheme, as outlined in Articles 239AA and 239AB and the 1991 Act, grants it a special position. They argued that Delhi's federal structure is distinct among Union Territories and that the 1991 Act was enacted to empower the NCTD in governance. The appellants asserted that both the Sixty-Ninth Amendment and the 1991 Act aimed to strengthen democracy in Delhi, and all matters within the Delhi Legislative Assembly's jurisdiction should be equally relevant for items listed in List II and List III of the Seventh Schedule.

 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT:

The respondents argued that the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, established by Article 239AA, functions as an Executive Head under the President through the Lieutenant Governor. They claimed that the constitutional framework for Union Territories was addressed in the New Delhi Municipal Corporation case, and Delhi remains a Union Territory. Article 239AA grants legislative power to Delhi's legislature but places limits on this power concerning Union Territories. The respondents asserted that the Court should ensure that the Executive Power of a Union Territory is not vested in the Ministerial Council or legislative assembly.

 

JUDGMENT:

• The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi does not possess independent decision-making authority. Instead, the LG must follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister of Delhi on matters within the purview of the Delhi Legislative Assembly. These matters include all subjects listed in the State List and the Concurrent List, except for police, public order, and land.
• The court clarified that the LG must adhere to the President's orders on referred matters. While the LG can seek the President's opinion in cases of disagreement with the government, the President's opinion, bound by the advice of the Union Council of Ministers led by the Prime Minister, is final in case of a conflict. The court stressed that the LG should exercise this power only in exceptional circumstances, not routinely.
• The court did not provide a precise definition of "trivial" differences in opinion and emphasized that governance in the National Capital Territory of Delhi should not be absolutist or anarchic.
• Additionally, the court highlighted that Delhi, while having a special status, is not a full-fledged state. Therefore, Delhi's Lieutenant Governor is not merely a constitutional figurehead but also holds the title of administrator.