NEW DELHI: In what could provide closure to a long running
political battle between the Centre and the
AAP government, a five-judge
constitution bench of the
Supreme Court will pronounce its
verdict on the vexed question of who should have a
major say in governing the
National Capital Territory.
Since assuming office with an overwhelming majority, the AAP government has been having an ugly public spat with the Centre’s representative, the lieutenant governor. The government has accused successive LGs of stalling its policy decisions relating to development work in the NCT.
The bitter tussle most recently saw Kejriwal and his ministerial colleagues stage a ‘sit in’ at the LG’s office demanding that he direct civil servants in Delhi to withdraw their strike in protest against the alleged assault by AAP MLAs on chief secretary Anshu Prakash at the residence of the CM. While AAP has accused the LG of deliberately obstructing its programmes, the latter has on several occasions pointed to AAP submitting proposals that don’t fulfil procedures or are simply outside its powers.
AAP had fielded a battery of senior advocates — Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan and Indira Jaising — and sought interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution, which according to the Centre created a state in Delhi but gave a major say in governance to the LG as he had been clearly mandated to take a decision when there was disagreement between him and the Delhi government over governance issues.
Appearing for the Centre, additional solicitor general Maninder Singh had said provisions of Article 239AA were crystal clear and there was no ambiguity as it categorically stated that in case of difference of opinion, the LG’s view will prevail. The judgment on Wednesday will be delivered by a bench of CJI
Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.
The AAP government had sought to know through SC’s constitutional interpretation whether NCT Delhi was a state, Union Territory or a hybrid. The Kejriwal government had complained to the SC that it was facing a crisis in governance because after the Delhi High Court’s “LG is boss of administration in Delhi” ruling, Delhi cadre officers were “increasingly reluctant” to report to ministers.
The AAP government said the HC erred in characterising the NCT of Delhi as a UT without taking into account the democratic rights of Delhiites. It had wondered before the SC whether the Delhi government had any power to legislate, despite the NCT of Delhi having an assembly, on any subject when the reins of governance was entrusted solely to the LG and, in turn, the Centre.
The Kejriwal government had argued that the HC’s finding that the LG was not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers headed by the chief minister was unsustainable in view of the constitutional provisions in Article 239AA, which categorically provided that LG “shall act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers in respect of matters for which the legislative assembly of Delhi has the powers to make laws”.
“If the LG is not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers, there can be no question of council of ministers being collectively responsible to the legislative assembly or citizens of Delhi as they have no control over the process of government decision making,” the AAP government had said.
It had said Delhi could not categorised “only as a UT” as the Delhi government had been saddled with a constitutional duty under Article 239AA to protect the rights of citizens, their welfare and security”.
Supreme Court