Video Editor: Mohd Irshad
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, 4 July, held that the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the Delhi government.
Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra delivered the majority judgment in the case (on behalf of himself and Justices AK Sikri and AM Khanwilkar), while Justices DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan delivered separate but concurring judgments.
The judgment should act as a boost for Arvind Kejriwal’s AAP government, which has been engaged in a prolonged tussle with first L-G Najeeb Jung, and now L-G Anil Baijal, and had been hamstrung by the Delhi High Court’s decision on these issues in 2016.
When the judgment was announced, it was quickly viewed as a major win for Arvind Kejriwal’s AAP Government. Central to this perception was a widespread belief that the Supreme Court had held that the L-G could only refer a decision of the Council of Ministers to the President if it related to public order, police or land. These are the matters which are excluded from the Delhi Legislative Assembly’s scope of authority under Article 239AA (and so technically lie outside the scope of the Council of Minister’s decision-making authority as well).
Despite this, the judgment is still a win for the Delhi government. Even though the L-G can refer decisions on any matter to the President, it has been clarified by all the judges that this can only be used in exceptional circumstances, and with adherence to high constitutional standards. They also emphasised that the Delhi government is elected to represent the will of the people and that the exercise of the L-G’s power should not be used to subvert and obstruct democracy.
The clarification by the Supreme Court that the L-G is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is also crucial, and represents a big change from what had been held by the Delhi High Court in 2016.
This does not mean, however, that this is the end of the tussle between the Kejriwal-led government and L-G Anil Baijal. Despite clarifying some important points, there are still some things which are unclear after the judgment, and are likely to require further clarification in fresh cases between Delhi and the Centre:
What constitutes an “exceptional situation” in which the L-G can refer a difference of opinion to the President?
The majority opinion penned by the CJI fails to offer any concrete guidance on this point, instead emphasising the constitutional ideals the L-G has to keep in mind if thinking of doing so. Justice Chandrachud does offer some more clarity, saying that the Proviso should only be invoked in relation to national concerns – where a decision of the Delhi government could impact the functioning of the Union government.
However, there will no doubt be differences of opinion between the Delhi government and the L-G (who is after all a proxy for the Modi government which is a political opponent of the AAP).
Does the L-G need to provide the Delhi government with reasons in writing, and does this need to be done within a specific timeframe?
The judgments are silent on both these points, which could give rise to procedural confusion. Since the L-G is only supposed to refer decisions where there is a substantial difference of opinion, this seems to imply having cogent reasons, but the lack of time limits is more tricky.
The Centre has proven adept at exploiting these kinds of loopholes – for example, how they delay judicial appointments by just not responding to recommendations of the Collegium. Justice Bhushan mentions that only a reasonable time gap needs to be given, but does not elaborate on this, and it is in any case not binding since the other two do not mention this.
Will the Delhi government now have control of civil service officers?
The issue of control over civil servants has been a major issue in Delhi and led to the recent dharna by Kejriwal at the L-G’s house. It is arguable that the Delhi government can now stake a claim for control over its civil servants, since the judgments of the court emphasise that the only issues which are outside the purview of the Delhi government are public order, police and land.
While services in other Union Territories are controlled by the Centre, the judges’ seeming recognition of Delhi’s special status offers them a new opportunity. However, again, this is an issue which likely needs clarification in the courts.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)