With the exception of Article 239AA(3)(a), entry 41 was added to the 2015 Notification, which also granted the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi the authority to enact laws on the subject, a power that the Government of NCTD was not granted. The notification that the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi cannot enact legislation for entry 41 – “Services” because they are outside the jurisdiction of the NCTD legislative assembly was affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench returned authority over entry 41 under List II to the Government of the North Central Triangle District.
government of nct of delhi vs uoi Case Facts
- lieutenant governor of Delhi at the time, Najeeb Jung, stated in April 2015 that he was not compelled by law to provide the Chief Minister’s office with information pertaining to law enforcement, land, or public order. Home Ministry backed the LG as well, arguing that these three entries are not covered by the help and counsel principle because they only lie under the purview of the LG. Numerous events culminated in the Supreme Court appeal being filed.
- According to the Home Ministry, the state ACB in Delhi lacks the authority to look into the aforementioned allegations against Central Government officials.
- The Delhi government’s decision to raise circle rates on agricultural land was stopped by the LG.
- The Home Ministry ruled that the government lacked the authority to form a commission, so the Delhi government’s panel to look into the claims of a CNG fitness scam was disbanded. proclaimed it to be void as a result.
- The Delhi government has once more established a commission to look into the Delhi & District Cricket Association fraud. The Home Ministry pronounced it invalid for the same reason.
- The result of all these ongoing occurrences was a conflict between the CM and the LG.
government of nct of delhi vs uoi Issues
- Whether the lieutenant governor or the Government of NCTD has legislative and executive authority over entry 41, which is specified in list II of the Constitution’s seventh schedule.
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- The NCTD legislative assembly cannot be excluded on the basis of the word “State” alone.
- The NCTD government’s failure to exercise its legislative authority does not mean that it has stopped.
- The ability to legislate under the State List is granted to the Government of Union Territories by the facilitating provision found in the term “insofar as such matter applies to Union Territories.”
Respondent:
- In the 2018 ruling, the Constitution bench refrained from providing a response to the question of whether Entry 41 of the State List falls under legislative power.
- In order to properly read the State list, the contextual interpretation must be taken into account. This will allow certain entries to be excluded from the Government of NCTD’s jurisdiction.
- As a restriction measure, the phrase “insofar as such matter applies to the Union Territories” is included, granting the government of the Union territory limited legislative jurisdiction that is exclusive to the Union territory.
government of nct of delhi vs uoi Judgment
- In this case, D.Y. Chandrachud dissented from the majority of the judges’ decision. He thinks that the executive head of the Delhi government is the Chief Minister, not the Lieutenant Governor.
- However, he added, Delhi’s position differs from the other union territories’. By statute, Parliament may deviate from Article 239(1), which designates the Lieutenant Governor as the executive leader of a union territory.
- A union territory and a union territory with a legislature are not the same thing. In the former, the Union maintains complete power but, in the event of a UT with a legislature, the people are represented by a local government.
- Statesmanship, which depends on persons in positions of decision-making, has an impact on the institutions in a democracy. J. Chandrachud emphasizes that misinterpreting democracy as a political system or the rule of majority would be incorrect.
- Democracy, as established in the Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu decision, is a fundamental framework that cannot be violated. By establishing an object of a democratic form of government, article 239aa of the indian constitution was enacted. The Parliament has the power to assign the UT Legislature’s responsibilities in a union territory.
- article 239aa of the indian constitution’s direct election regulation represents the participatory system of governance. Unlike a state, which has sole authority over the State list, a union territory does not have a legislature. The Parliament may establish specific exceptions that limit the government of UT’s ability to enact laws regarding State list matters.
- According to J. Chandrachud, the help and advice principle only applies when the Legislature has the power to create legislation; it does not apply to topics over which the LG has sole authority or uses his judgment. According to him, the executive branch needs to be in charge of a democracy with representation in parliament. It was decided that the LG’s autonomy to act breaches the fundamental tenet of article 239aa of the indian constitution, which is representative governance.
- Furthermore, if every matter is presented before the Union, the legislature will be ineffective because the Central Government will be the sole body operating. The disagreements should be discussed and settled before making the reference. Since the Legislature has been given authority, it shouldn’t be diminished. The balance of powers must be maintained in order to uphold the checks and balances principle.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
