NEW DELHI: A PIL challenging the constitutional cap on the number of ministers in the Delhi government has been moved before the Delhi High Court, urging the court to bring the capital’s Council of Ministers at par with other states under Article 164(1) of the Constitution.
The petitioner asserts that the limited ministerial strength of the national capital– currently restricted to just seven – stands in stark contrast to the administrative demands of the territory, which encompasses 38 ministries and a 70-member Legislative Assembly.
The plea, filed by Aakash Goel through Advocate Kumar Utkarsh, contends that this imbalance is obstructing governance and violating the core constitutional values of federalism and democracy.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela took up the matter on Wednesday and acknowledged the need for judicial scrutiny in the matter. The court listed the case for further hearing on July 28, although it refrained from issuing a formal notice at this stage.
The plea challenges the validity of Section 2(4) of the Constitution (69th Amendment) Act, 1991 along with Article 239AA, both of which limit Delhi’s Council of Ministers to 10% of the total number of MLAs – a ceiling far lower than in any full-fledged state.
According to the petition, the next lowest states in terms of ministerial representation, Goa and Sikkim, have at least 12 ministers each despite smaller assemblies with 40 and 32 members respectively.
Goel argues that this limitation is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory, breaching Article 14 which guarantees equality before law.
He further claims that the constraint undermines Delhi’s administrative efficiency and dilutes its autonomy despite a democratically-elected government. “There is a heavy strain on the few existing Ministers who are unable to efficiently oversee the administration of a densely populated and complex territory like Delhi,” the plea notes, adding, such disparity is exacerbating delays in policy decisions and execution.
The high court, during preliminary remarks, observed that the issue at hand does not directly raise concerns of federalism but instead questions whether the existing restriction amounts to discriminatory treatment under Article 14.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya observed that Delhi’s governance structure, being unique under the constitutional framework, requires nuanced analysis. “Delhi operates under a distinctive constitutional scheme where powers are jointly held by both the Union and the State governments, even on matters typically reserved for States alone,” the Chief Justice said.
He further observed if Delhi’s status as a standalone entity is constitutionally accepted, how can it be equated with other States that operate under an entirely different model?”