Day 1 Arguments

Special Status of Delhi

2nd November 2017

On 2.11.2017, the Supreme Court commenced hearing the Special Status of Delhi case. The case was initiated by an appeal filed by the Delhi government against the High Court verdict which held that Delhi is not a state and that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is its administrative head.


Mr. Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the Delhi government, started the arguments before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A. M. KhanwilkarD.Y. ChandrachudA.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.


Mr Subramanium prefaced his arguments by invoking the importance of the Madisonian concept of a “democratically elected” government – a representation of the trust reposed in it by the electorate. He argued that in the present petition, it would appear that a proviso [Art 239AA (4)] had been interpreted to the detriment of the superseding clause (Art239AA) itself.


Article 239 AA creates a National Capital Territory with an elected legislature. Article 239 AA(4)  envisages a system with “the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor in the exercise of his functions in relation to matters with respect to which the Legislative Assembly has the power to make laws, except in so far as he is, by or under any law, required to act in his discretion”. Further, the proviso to Article 239 AA(4) reads – “.. that in the case of difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and his Ministers on any matter, the Lieutenant Governor shall refer it to the President for decision and act according to the decision given thereon by the President …”


He classified Union Territories into three types, a model example, where the administrator is a delegate of the President, second – an instance of a legislature established by statute, and third, wherein a legislature has been established by a constitutional amendment. The National Capital Territory (NCT), therefore, falls within the third category as the 69th Constitutional Amendment, 1991 established the same by inserting Art 239AA which contemplated three core concepts, a legislature, a Council of Ministers along with a Chief Minister, and the appointment of the executive by the President.


Mr. Subramaniam pointed to the error of the Delhi High Court judgment where it had incorrectly applied the decision in the DV Tandel v. Administrator, Goa Daman & Diu (1982), where the accompanying piece of legislation granted wider discretionary powers to the Lieutenant Governor. However, the GNCTD Act 1991 that accompanied the amendment specifically placed restrictions on the discretionary power of the Governor while also limiting the scope of the proviso to Art 239AA(4), he argued.


The discussion then shifted to the interpretation of the proviso to Art 239AA(4) with Mr Subramanium strongly advocating for a narrow interpretation of the discretionary powers of the LG so as to preserve the substantive value of the main provision itself. He further restricted the scope of the exception by arguing that the term “any of the matters” in this proviso would only matter where the State Legislative does not have the authority to make laws i.e. in these three subjects- public order, land, and police. The bench rejected this classification and posed a question regarding the criteria to constitute “difference of opinion”.  Mr Subramanium replied by postulating that only instances of “authentic difference” which could further be qualified as “weighty” and “constructive” might constitute a matter of enough importance to attract the implementation of the proviso.


The court digressed into discussing Rules of Business and the powers of the Central Government to issue directions and Mr Subramanium raised the contention that while parliamentary sovereignty was retained over the NCT’s legislative powers, its executive supremacy was restricted by virtue of 239AA(4)’s lack of an explicit provision for the same. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be to read legislative-executive coextensiveness in favor of Delhi Government except in matters where the Delhi Government does not enjoy legislative powers.


The matter would be heard next on 7.11.2017.

(With contributions from Ms Nidhi Khanna)