Judgment MatrixSpecial Status of Delhi
The 5 judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices DY Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan and A.K. Sikri unanimously held that the Chief Minister and not the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is the executive head of the government. The judgment was delivered by CJI Dipak Misra speaking for himself and Justices A.K. Sikri and A.M. Khanwilkar concurred. Justices DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan wrote two separate concurring opinions.
While the 5 judges unanimously held that the Chief Minister and not the LG is the executive head of Delhi, this decision matrix identifies the congruences and differences by the judges on key questions of law.
|S.No.||Issues||Justice Dipak Misra||Justice DY Chandrachud||Justice Ashok Bhushan|
|1)||Is Delhi a state?||No||No||No|
|2)||If Delhi is not a state, then what is the status of Delhi?||Delhi is not a state neither is it a Union Territory (UT). It is a class apart.||Status of Delhi is special. But is not a State.||Delhi is a UT.|
|3)||As the LG is the administrator of Delhi, is he bound by the “aid and advise” of the Council of Ministers (COM)? [Article 239AA(4)]||LG is bound by the “aid and advise” of the COM on all matters on which the Delhi assembly has the power to make laws. LG has no “independent power”.||LG’s duty to listen to “aid and advise” of COM.||LG is bound by aid and advise of COM.|
|4)||Can “any matter” be referred to the President by the LG? [Exceptions to Article 239AA(4)]||“Any” does not imply every matter. In narrow exceptional situations, LG can refer matters to the President. However no specific matters or conditions laid down.||“Any” does not imply every matter. Only matters of “vital national interest”, where the consultation between the LG and the COM does not result in an agreement, can the matter be referred.||“Any matter” can’t be routinely referred to the President. Only matters “necessary to safeguard interest of UT”|
|5)||Is LG’s concurrence necessary? [GNCTD Act]||LG must be informed of decisions of COM but concurrence is not necessary.||Consultation is required, concurrence is not necessary.||LG must be informed of decisions of COM but concurrence is not necessary.|