No space for anarchy, absolutism: Supreme Court on Delhi power tussle

The bench observed that the Constitution was constructive and made it clear that there is no room for absolutism.

Supreme Court (File| PTI)

NEW DELHI: Kejriwal was at loggerheads with both incumbent L-G Anil Baijal and his predecessor Najeeb Jung and had accused both of preventing the functioning of his government at the behest of the Centre.

"It is clear as noonday that by no stretch of imagination, NCT of Delhi can be accorded the status of a State under our present constitutional scheme," wrote the CJI in his 237-page verdict for himself and on behalf of justices A K Sikri and A M Khanwilkar.

"The status of NCT of Delhi is sui generis, a class apart, and the status of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State, rather he remains an Administrator, in a limited sense, working with the designation of LG," the verdict said.

The bench observed that the Constitution was constructive and made it clear that there is no room for absolutism. There is no space for anarchy.

On the issues involving interpretation of Article 239 AA dealing with the powers and the status of Delhi, the bench said that it would now be considered by a bench of two or three judges to adjudicate the matters on which there was a tug of war between the Delhi government and the Centre.

The bench categorically stated that, "Differences of opinion between the LG and the Council of Ministers should have a sound rationale and there should be no exposition of the phenomenon of an obstructionist."

Advising the LG to act as a facilitator, the bench said, "Though the LG was not a titular head, he should not emerge as an adversary having a hostile attitude towards the Council of Ministers. The LG and the council of ministers must attempt to settle any point of difference by way of discussion and dialogue."

It said that barring three issues of public order, police and land, the Delhi Legislative Assembly had powers to make laws on all other subjects and govern.

Justice D Y Chandrachud, who wrote a 175-page separate concurring verdict, said the LG must keep in mind that it is the Council of Ministers which takes substantive decisions and the provisions of Article 239 AA(4) must be operated and applied in a manner which facilitates and does not obstruct the governance in Delhi.

Justice Ashok Bhushan, who also wrote a 123-page concurring judgement, said as the Delhi Legislative Assembly represents the elected representatives, "Their opinion and decisions have to be respected in all cases, except where LG decides to make a reference to the President."