UPSC: UT Special Provisions for Delhi

69^th CAA 1991:

1.       Special Status for UT of Delhi

2.       Resdesignation: National Capital Territory of Delhi

3.       Designated administrator of Delhi as lieutenant governor.

4.       Created a legislative assembly and a council of ministers for Delhi.

5.       The assembly can make laws on all matters of the state list and the concurrent list, that is, public order, police and land.

6.       But, the laws of Parliament prevail over those made by the Assembly

7.       The chief minister is appointed by the President. The other ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the CM. The ministers hold office during the pleasure of the president.

8.       The CoM headed by the CM aid and advice the lt. governor in the exercise of his functions except in so far as he is required to act in his discretion.

9.       In the case of difference opinion between the lt. governor and his ministers, the lt. governor is to refer the matter to the president for decisions and act accordingly

Though seen as a Union Territory, Delhi was created as a separate category, with an elected Assembly with powers to enact laws in all matters falling under the State and Concurrent lists, with the exception of public order, police and land. This gave it a status higher than other UTs.

Kabhi kisiko mukkamal jahan nahi milta

Kahin zameen nahi to kahin aasman nahi milta

Reasons why Delhi does not have complete statehood:

1.       The most intractable issue is the problem of having two governments in the same city-State.

2.       In the constitutional scheme, law and order, security and land are State subjects. No Central government can afford to leave these critical issues to someone else in a city from which it is also functioning.

3.       The issue is not just egocentric. It involves the safety of the many entities organically linked to it, especially the embassies which are protected by treaties and conventions and are given immunity in various respects. There is also the issue of security of the visiting heads of states and other dignitaries. This is a major responsibility of the Centre and cannot be given to another entity.

4.       It is the headquarters of intelligence and the security apparatus. It has a huge diplomatic core. It is where all State governments have a direct stake, whether in land, offices or officers.

Delhi LG-CM Tussle Timeline

1.       14.02.15: Kejriwal takes oath as CM 2^nd time

2.       Issues

a.       files related to police, public order and land

b.      bureaucratic postings

c.       chairperson for Delhi Commission for Women

d.      Inquiry into scams

e.      IAS and DANIC Officers going on one-day leave

3.       August 4, 2016: Delhi High Court says that LG is the administrative head of National Capital Territory and AAP government’s contention that he is bound to act on the advice of Council of Ministers was “without substance”. AAP government moves Supreme Court.

4.       December 22, 2016: Najeeb Jung resigns as Delhi L-G.

5.       December 31, 2016: Anil Baijal takes oath as Lieutenant- Governor of Delhi.

6.       December 2017: Rajya Sabha member claiming that the chief minister was being treated like a “peon”

7.       19 February 2018: alleged assault on Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash by AAP leaders at Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s residence

a.       IAS Officers – skipping routine meetings

8.       On June 11, 2018, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal sat in protest at the Lieutenant Governor’s office against the “strike” by IAS officers.

9.       On June 14, 2018, Kejriwal wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, requesting him, “with folded hands”, to intervene and end the agitation of the IAS officers.

Delhi Government’s Stand in SC

1.       AAP dispensation had said that the chief minister and the council of ministers had the legislative power to make laws as well as the executive authority to enforce the enacted statutes.

2.       The AAP government had argued that the LG has been taking many executive decisions and a “harmonious interpretation” of Article 239AA of the Constitution was needed to fulfil the constitutional mandate for a democratically-elected Delhi government.

3.       Delhi government had accused the LG of making a “mockery of democracy”, saying he was either taking decisions of an elected government or substituting them without having any power.

Centre’s Stand in SC

1.       The Centre had contended before the bench that Delhi government cannot have the “exclusive” executive powers as it would be against national interests and referred to the 1989 Balakrishnan committee report that had dealt with the reasons for not granting status of a state to Delhi.

2.       It had also argued that several “illegal” notifications were issued by the Delhi government and they were challenged in the high court.

3.       The Centre had referred to the Constitution, the 1991 Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act and the Transaction of Business of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Rules to drive home the point that the President, the union government and the LG had supremacy over city dispensation in administering the national capital.

Supreme Court Verdict

1.       Top Court said the Delhi Lieutenant Governor cannot act independently and must take the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers.

2.       Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has no independent decision-making power.

3.       Supreme Court has restored the primary role played by the “representative government”.

4.       The power to refer “any matter” to the President no longer means “every matter”. Further, there is no requirement of the Lt. Governor’s concurrence for any proposal.

5.       Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in a separate but concurring opinion, has indicated that it could “encompass substantial issues of finance and policy which impact upon the status of the national capital or implicate vital interests of the Union.” Every trivial difference of opinion will not fall under the proviso.

6.       Overall, the verdict is an appeal to a sense of constitutional morality and constitutional trust among high functionaries.

7.       The basic message is that an elected government cannot be undermined by an unelected administrator.

8.       The larger one is that the Union and its units should embrace a collaborative federal architecture for co-existence and inter-dependence.