Case Briefing:
The case is Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India & Another, heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India.
The judgment was delivered on July 04, 2018.
The judgment included opinions from Dipak Misra, CJI (on behalf of himself, A.K. Sikri, and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.), Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., and Ashok Bhushan, J..
Question Presented (Issue)
The central constitutional issue concerned the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution and the extent of powers exercisable by the democratically elected Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) in relation to the Lieutenant Governor (LG).
Specifically, the Court addressed the conflict arising from the meaning and scope of the proviso to Article 239AA(4), which allows the LG to refer a “difference of opinion” with the Council of Ministers (COM) “on any matter” to the President.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a batch of appeals challenging a Delhi High Court judgment, addressing perennial conflicts between the LG and the elected Council of Ministers over issues of administration.
The GNCTD challenged actions and notifications by the Union Government (Ministry of Home Affairs) that asserted LG’s power over matters like “Services” and restricted the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) from investigating Central Government officials.
The Union of India (Respondent) contended that the LG, as the representative of the Union, must retain powers over all matters, asserting that the phrase “any matter” in the proviso to Article 239AA(4) should be read literally to mean “every matter”. The respondents relied on the historical context, emphasizing that Delhi remains a Union Territory, and the constitutional scheme was designed to ensure Union supremacy due to Delhi’s special status as the National Capital.
The GNCTD (Appellant) argued that the 69th Constitutional Amendment (inserting Article 239AA) gave Delhi a unique position, establishing a Westminster-style cabinet system, making the LG a titular head generally bound by the “aid and advice” of the COM.
Decision and Holding
The Supreme Court confirmed that the GNCTD has been conferred a sui generis status distinct from regular Union Territories.
The Court held that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is bound by the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers in respect of matters on which the Legislative Assembly has power to make laws.
However, the Court clarified that while the LG must be kept informed of decisions, the proviso to Article 239AA(4), allowing reference of a “difference of opinion… on any matter” to the President, is not limited solely to excepted legislative entries.
Crucially, the Court held that the exercise of power under the proviso cannot be a routine affair and must adhere to principles of constitutional morality and pragmatic federalism.
Reasoning and Rationale
1. Interpretation Methodology: The Court adopted a purposive interpretation (over a strict literal reading) for this “great living document”. A literal approach reading “any matter” as “every matter” (as argued by the respondents) was rejected because it would lead to an absurd result, annihilating the democratic principle, reducing the elected government to a “cipher”. Judicial creativity, aligned with constitutional objectives, is essential.
2. Status of NCT and Federalism: The insertion of Articles 239AA and 239AB strengthened the basic structure of democracy by establishing a new governance structure, granting Delhi a special status. This constitutional architecture mandates concepts like collaborative federalism and pragmatic federalism. The Union and the State Governments (and the NCT) must work in harmony, avoiding constitutional discord.
3. Role of the Executive (Aid and Advice): Article 239AA(4) establishes a Westminster-style cabinet system where the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly. In such a system, the executive head (LG, President, or Governor) is generally the titular head and bound by the Council of Ministers’ advice. The core decision-making power vests in the elected executive.
4. Scope of the LG’s Discretion (Proviso to Article 239AA(4)): The word “any” in “any matter” must be interpreted in context. It cannot be mechanically interpreted to mean “everything”.
- Restriction on LG’s Power: The proviso is not a routine mechanism; it contemplates an “extreme and unusual situation”. Allowing the LG to differ on any proposal would obstruct the smooth governance of the NCT and defeat the purpose of democracy.
- Threshold for Difference: The difference of opinion must be substantial and not trifling. It should arise from matters that impact the status of the national capital or involve vital interests of the Union or substantial finance and policy issues. Matters listed in Rule 23 of the Transaction of Business Rules (TBR, 1993) may justify recourse to the proviso.
- Constitutional Conduct: Before making a reference to the President, the LG must make every effort to resolve the difference with the Council of Ministers. The LG must act as a facilitator and reflect “affirmative constructionism” rather than being an “obstructionist”. The difference must be based on objective assessment and demonstrate sound reason.
5. Statutory Scheme (TBR, 1993): The TBR, 1993, requires the LG to be kept informed of all proposals, agendas, and decisions. This communication serves the purpose of enabling the LG to exercise his powers under the proviso, but does not grant him veto power or require concurrence on every matter. The LG’s approval is implicit if he does not decide to make a reference after reviewing the decision.
6. Conclusion on Principles: The governance of the NCT requires constitutional pragmatism and a dedication to constitutional renaissance, which means remaining constantly aware of the rule of law and the vision of the living document, acting heedless of executive hubris and taking note of the behavioral needs of democracy.
CASE: GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI vs UNION OF INDIA C.A. No. 2357/2017
