GOVERENMENT OF NCT OF DELHI V. UNION OF INDIA, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 606

Author: Krishna Parmar, Law Student at Marwadi University
Edited By: Manik Tindwani

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The present case deals with the issue that arises from the partial statehood given to Union Terriority, Delhi [The National Capital Territory of Delhi]. There is a power struggle between the state government [Aam Admi Party led by Arvid Kejriwal] and the Union Government of India. The main issue in the case is who would have control over the “service” and the civil servant of the NCTD. State government or Union government?  In the judgment, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 239AA [1]of the Indian Constitution as interpreted in the year 2018. The bench held that legislative and executive power is with the National Capital Territory of Delhi except for public order, police, and land. It was further stated that the Delhi government shall bind the lieutenant governor excluding the order relating to public order, police, and land.

Keywords (Minimum 5): Article 239AA, Article 239AA (3) (a), Union territory, state, NCTD, State list, Concurrent list, Entry no. 1,2, and 18 of List II.

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

In the said judgment decision was held by a five-judge constitutional bench because of split judgment was held by the general bench of the Supreme Court and in this judgment, the bench has given the clarity of those matters or that area which is not interpreted in the previous case. Further, it held the partially same thing that was held by the previous bench but with more clarity and reference.

FACTS OF THE CASE

i) Procedural Background of the Case

1. 1. The issues arose after the notification passed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on 21-05-2015 “to the extent delegated to him from time to time by the President” over “services”, in addition to “public order”, “police”, and “land.” The LG may seek the views of the Chief Minister of NCTD at his “discretion”.[2] In which the “services” were excluded from the scope of power of state government.
   2. Delhi High Court held that Delhi government has neither legislative nor executive powers in matters related to service.
   3. In 2018 [3]Supreme Court held that the Delhi government has the power to enact laws enumerated in List-1 and list-2 of the constitution. “Further, it was held the phrase “insofar as any such matter applies to Union Territories” is an inclusive term, and “not one of exclusion”. and cannot be used to restrict the legislative power of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi.[4]”
   4. In 2019 bench gave a split judgment and differed on whether services are excluded or not.

ii) Factual Background of the Case

The same appeal was again referred by the Supreme Court of India because of the split verdict given in the year 2019.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Government of Delhi or the Lieutenant Governor acting on behalf of the Union Government would control the “services” in the National Capital Territory of Delhi?
2. Whether the control of Delhi’s civil servants with the Union Government of Delhi Government?

• Whether the phrase “insofar as such matter applies to Union Territories” in Article 239AA is inclusionary or exclusionary.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsel Appellant submitted that the power to enact laws under Entry 41 of List II of the Legislative Assembly of NCTD cannot be excluded just because the term used is “state public services” and not “Union Territory Public Service”. Except for entries 1,2, and 18 NCTD has executive and legislative power.
• The phrase “insofar as such matter applies to Union Territories” in Article 239AA is inclusionary and not exclusionary. The term “state” is used in the multiple entries in List II and III. The phrase “insofar as such matter applies to Union Territories” is a phrase that is the reason why such entries are to be made available to NCTD without an amendment.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Respondent submitted that the 2018 Constitution bench didn’t decide whether NCTD has legislative power to enact the law on Entry 41 of List II. Another reason why NCTD has no power over Entry 41 of List II is that Delhi is a union territory and it can’t have the State Public Service or a State Public Service Commission.
• The phrase “in so far as any such matter applies to Union Territories” under Article 239AA means that the entries which are given under List II are available to the extent which are available to UTs. For the matters that are ‘applicable’ to Union Territories to that extent, only NCTD has the power to legislate and only on the Entry which applies to Union Territories.
• The Union of India’s control over “services” hasn’t caused any problems for the NCTD’s governance, and The Transaction of Business Rules 1993 gives Ministers of GNCTD sufficient authority to guarantee functional and supervisory control over the civil services to guarantee their proper operation; the regulations about the civil services indicate that the Union has administrative control.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 239AA (3) (a).[5]– “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislative Assembly shall have power to make laws for the whole or any part of the National Capital Territory with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or in the Concurrent List in so far as any such mailer is applicable to Union territories except matters with respect to Entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State List and Entries 64, 65 and 66 of that List in so far as they relate to the said Entries 1, 2, and 18”.

JUDGEMENT (RATIO DECIDENDI)

A Constitution Bench included Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hime Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha held that the Delhi Government has legislative and executive authority over administrative services except the matters related to public order, law enforcement, and land.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

In the case of Government of NCT Delhi v. Union of India court has broadly interpreted the meaning and scope of Article 239AA concerning previous cases and resolved the conflict between the state and Union and also stated the concept of state and partial statehood which Delhi has despite of the fact that it is a Union territory and said that NCTD is not similar with the other UTs.

REFERENCES

• Important Cases Referred

• • Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, (2016) 232 DLT 196.
  • State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501
• Important Statutes Referred
  • Constitution of India, 1950.

[1] INDIA CONST. art. 239AA.

[2]Explaine SCC Times, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/05/13/explained-supreme-court-judgment-settling-tussle-between-delhi-govt-and-centre-legal-news/ (last visited Jun 4, 2024)

[3] State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501.

[4] Supra note 02.

[5]INDIA CONST. art. 239AA, cl. 3.