Arvind Kejriwal declared victory for democracy after a significant Supreme Court win in the power struggle with the LG.
INTRODUCTION
The ongoing power struggle between the Delhi government led by Arvind Kejriwal and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi over the control of administrative functions in the national capital territory.
In July 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a verdict stating that the LG must work in harmony with the elected government of Delhi and that he cannot act as an obstructionist in the day-to-day functioning of the Delhi government. The verdict was seen as a major win for the Delhi government and was hailed by Kejriwal as a victory for democracy.
सत्यमेव जयते। दिल्ली की जनता की जीत हुई। लोकतंत्र की जीत हुई। सत्य की जीत हुई। सभी दिल्लीवासियों को बधाई। https://t.co/QiBTXx9IBO
— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) May 11, 2023
The ruling was seen as a major boost for the powers of the elected government in Delhi and was expected to pave the way for smoother functioning of the administration in the national capital. However, there have been subsequent legal challenges and disagreements between the Delhi government and the LG over various issues.
CENTRE’S ARGUMENT
The Centre contended that the court failed to scrutinize two pivotal phrases in Article 239AA(3)(a) in the 2018 ruling. It further argued that since no Union Territory had the authority over services, Delhi was similarly bereft of such power. Consequently, Delhi could only enact laws on matters that other Union Territories were explicitly authorized to legislate upon. Subsequently, the court delved into an analysis of the interpretation of the phrase in previous rounds of litigation. The court found that the phrase “subject to the provisions of this Constitution,” which appeared in the second phrase of Article 239AA(3)(a), was not unique to this article and could not impose any limitations on the Delhi government’s authority.
THE BONE OF CONTENTION
The matter under consideration by the Constitution Bench was specifically limited to the scope of legislative and executive powers vested in the Centre and National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) regarding the term “services”, as explicitly noted by the court. The bone of contention in this case revolved around the crucial issue of determining whether it was the Delhi government or the Union government that wielded the ultimate legislative and executive control over the capital’s bureaucracy. To put it in simpler terms, the court had to decide which of the two entities held the reins of power with respect to services in Delhi.
WHAT DID THE COURT DECIDE IN CASE OF KEJRIWAL?
The court’s decision was two-fold. Firstly, it determined that Delhi’s constitutional status is sui generis, meaning it is a unique model that cannot be compared to any other Union Territory. This was based on Article 239AA, which grants Delhi a special constitutional status. The court referred to a quote from the 2018 judgment delivered by Justice Chandrachud, who stated that considering Delhi’s history and background, it would be fundamentally inappropriate to assign it a status similar to other Union Territories.
दिल्ली के लोगों के साथ न्याय करने के लिए माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट का तहे दिल से शुक्रिया। इस निर्णय से दिल्ली के विकास की गति कई गुना बढ़ेगी।
जनतंत्र की जीत हुई।
— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) May 11, 2023
Secondly, the court clarified the interpretation of two crucial phrases in Article 239AA(3)(a). It rejected the Centre’s argument that Delhi cannot legislate on services as no Union Territory has such power. The court explained that the phrase “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” is not a limitation on the Delhi government’s power and cannot be interpreted to restrict it. Therefore, Delhi has the power to legislate on services, and the elected government has the authority to make decisions on all matters except for public order, police, and land.
DELHI’S POWERS NOW?
To answer the question of the extent of Delhi’s powers, it is important to note that Article 239AA excludes land, police, and public order from the legislative powers of the Delhi government. However, the court recognized that these issues can overlap with “services”. Therefore, the court clarified that Delhi’s legislative and executive power over Entry 41 (services) shall not extend to services related to public order, police, and land. Nevertheless, Delhi shall have legislative and executive power over Indian administrative services, or joint cadre of services, which are relevant for implementing the policies and vision of NCT of Delhi in terms of day-to-day administration of the region, according to the court’s decision.
Arvind Kejriwal declared victory for democracy after a significant Supreme Court win in the power struggle with the LG.
To know more about Arvind kejriwal news
If you found this blog helpful or informative, we would greatly appreciate it if you could hit the like and share buttons! please, don’t hesitate to show your support and spread the word by liking and sharing this blog with your friends, family, and social media networks. Thank you for your support!
Team Rozana updates wishes you a good future ahead. Stay connected via:
THANK YOU.
