Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal Hours after the Supreme Court ruled that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) has no “independent decision-making power” and that he has to work on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, an elated Kejriwal-led government hailed the judgment as a “big victory for Delhi and democracy.” Accusing the Modi government of wasting “precious three years” of Delhi, Kejriwal held a cabinet meeting in which it announced expediting the implementation of key projects that the party had promised. While the Delhi BJP said the verdict established that the Constitution is the “boss” and asked AAP to shun its “anarchy,” the Congress said the judgment should end “blame game” between the Centre and state government in Delhi. Here is all that happened since the Supreme Court’s verdict * What the apex court said on Delhi CM vs LG Putting an end to the power tussle in the national capital, the five-judge bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra ruled that the Delhi government does not need the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor for its decisions but has to only keep him posted. The LG should not act as an “adversary having a hostile attitude” towards the government but act as a facilitator. “The LG and the council of ministers must attempt to settle any point of difference by way of discussion and dialogue,” it said. * AAP calls for cabinet meet, discusses flagship projects Soon after the verdict, the Kejriwal government who termed it as a “huge win” called for a cabinet meeting to discuss on the key developmental projects in Delhi. Projects like doorstep delivery of ration, installation of CCTV cameras, regularisation of contractual employees, the appointment of teachers were discussed and will be expedited after the apex court’s order. Read | Fast-tracked: Ration at doorstep, CCTVs Delhi government’s flagship project — Mohalla clinics — may get a boost after the SC verdict. According to AAP sources, the Delhi Cabinet in 2016 had approved a health insurance scheme. The proposal was, however, “virtually rejected” by the Lt-Governor. The party had also promised the creation of 1,000 mohalla clinics before the elections. However, there are only 164 clinics and the problem, AAP has claimed, was interference from the L-G. * Kejriwal’s proposal for transfer of power rejected Arvind Kejriwal also pushed for a new system for transfer and postings of bureaucrats. In a file sent to Secretary (Services), the AAP government made Kejriwal as the approving authority for transfer and postings of bureaucrats. The bureaucrats, however, claimed that ‘services matter’ still lies with the office of Lt Governor because Delhi is a union territory and refused to carry out the order. So far, the Lieutenant Governor has been the approving authority for transfers and postings of the IAS and DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Services) officers. Express Opinion | Delhi LG and bureaucracy can continue to influence a host of policy matters in Delhi * BJP, Congress welcome judgment, asks AAP to work for Delhi’s development The BJP said the court order is a “final warning” to the Kejriwal government to work as per the rules. “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court establishes that the Constitution is the boss in Delhi, and elsewhere in the country. It is also a final warning to the Kejriwal government to shun anarchism and follow the Constitution,” said Delhi BJP chief Manoj Tiwari. He also claimed that the court has clarified that Delhi is the national capital and cannot have full statehood. Express Explained | Delhi power tussle: Between the court’s lines Delhi Congress president Ajay Maken said, “After the SC verdict, there should not be any charges and counter-charges by CM Kejriwal and the L-G. We now expect that more hospitals will be opened and that the Lokpal Bill, placed in the Vidhan Sabha in February 2014, will be passed; not the diluted one. But if the chief minister continues to say that files are pending with the L-G, as they did in the case of doorstep delivery of services and CCTV, then nothing will happen.” Read | Supreme Court spells out ‘moral’ message: Trust vital between Centre, states * SC verdict has a spillover effect on Puducherry Soon after the Supreme Court’s verdict, Puducherry Chief Minister V Narayansamy who is locked in a power tussle with the Lt. Governor Kiran Bedi threatened contempt proceedings if the judgment was not followed in the Union territory. Narayanasamy said the order proves that whatever he has been writing to the Prime Minister and Union Ministry of Home Affairs for the past two years is true. “Prime Minister never replied to my letters. Home Minister never acted on them. Now the time has come for us to fulfill the projects we promised. We thank the judiciary. L-G Bedi cannot come up with any more hindrances,” he said. “Whoever functions contrary to the judgment now delivered by the apex court would face serious action. I myself would file a contempt petition against those failing to act in consonance with the supreme court verdict,” the Congress leader said.<doc-sep>Delhi Lt Governor Anil Baijal with Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in 2016 . (Photo: Praveen Khanna/file) Delhi Lt Governor Anil Baijal with Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in 2016 . (Photo: Praveen Khanna/file) After the Emergency, there was a view that the Supreme Court was suffering from a crisis of legitimacy, as illustrated by its pro-government judgments. In subsequent years, the court tried to dispel that impression through the public interest litigation. After January 12, 2018, when the four most senior judges made public their letter to the Chief Justice of India, fresh concerns were expressed about the independence of judges. Some experts suggested that when a powerful government with a massive majority assumes power, judges do not assert themselves in the same way as they do when a coalition government is ruling. Wednesday’s judgment on the role of the Delhi Lieutenant-Governor has put to rest such doubts. Even before this, the CJI had decided the Arunachal Pradesh matter against the central government, and the judgment in the Hadiya case too had upheld her right to choose her spouse. The 535-page, unanimous judgment of the five-judge Constitution Bench comes at a time when the central government has been justifying all actions of the Lt Governor. In fact, no Governor or Lt Governor really acts on his own. Indian Governors have traditionally been loyal to those ruling from Delhi. In the Arunachal case too, the Supreme Court had criticised then Governor J P Rajkhowa. Also read | Decisions of Delhi govt will not require the concurrence of L-G, says Supreme Court CJI Dipak Misra wrote a powerful, 237-page, majority opinion on behalf of himself and Justices A K Sikri and A M Khanwilkar. Justice D Y Chandrachud, after the judgment on privacy, wrote yet another authoritative opinion in which he concurred with the CJI and noted that democracy is in danger from authoritarianism in several countries and there is a need for adherence to “constitutional morality”. He listed four foundational principles including secular ideology. Justice Ashok Bhushan, in a 123-page concurring opinion, emphasised purposive interpretation of the Constitution and representative government. Also, Justice Chandrachud allowed the Lt Governor to refer to the President only such matters that jeopardise national interest, thus narrowing the scope of the L-G’s power to do so. New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal being welcomed by government and staff at Delhi Secretariat, in New Delhi on Wednesday, July 04, 2018. (Source: AAP/Twitter via PTI) Fundamental principles Justice Misra devoted 120 pages or so to elaborating on 12 fundamental principles of India’s liberal constitutional democracy, with constitutionalism or the concept of limited powers as its central idea. He stressed purposive interpretation and sustenance of the “glory of constitutional democracy” so that the constitutional promise of representative democracy to citizens is fulfilled. He observed that courts need to adopt pragmatic interpretation to further the spirit of the Constitution, rule of law and participatory democracy. The text of the Constitution, he observed, is to be read in the light of its avowed purpose and spirit. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, he said that a just government should derive its powers from the consent of the governed. Towards the end of his judgment, he used these very ideals in laying down the law on the powers of Delhi’s Lt Governor. Justice Misra came down heavily on authoritarianism and reckless exercise of powers by any constitutional authority. In fact, he was indirectly deciding against himself — being a top constitutional functionary, he too is to be now guided by these high principles in the constitution of benches and the selection of judges. The CJI also talked of the possibility of an elite, monopolising democracy and converting it into a government of the elite. But he did not highlight the dangers of majoritarianism — representative governments, at times, do turn against minorities and violate the spirit of the constitutional pact on the basis of which the nation itself was created. But he did say that every representative government must have accessibility and approachability and such a government should never sacrifice what the CJI termed the “conscience of the constitution”. Justice Misra agreed that “constitutional morality” — absolute and unqualified adherence to constitutional principles — is not a natural instinct and concerted efforts need to be made to cultivate this fundamental value. He talked of “constitutional objectivity” as an idea of checks and balances so that the legislature and the executive operate only within their limited allotted spheres, as “legitimate constitutional trust” is based on separation of powers, with denial of absolute power to any one functionary being the larger goal. L-G & ministers The authoritative finding is that the Lt Governor is just an “administrator” and administrative head in a limited sense, and that he is bound by the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers. He has no independent powers of his own; he has to either go by the advice of ministers, or comply with the orders of the President on matters referred to him. He cannot interfere in every case, there is no need of his concurrence in each matter, and he can refer matters to the President only in exceptional situations and not in a “routine or mechanical manner”. This means the court has reversed the Delhi High Court judgment that had held that the Lt Governor is not bound by the “aid and advice” of ministers. The CJI held that “any matter” in Article 239AA(4) does not mean “every matter”; the Lt Governor has to employ “constitutional objectivity” and exercise this power in the rarest of rare situations for valid reasons. The Lt Governor does not have the power to change every decision or differ with every decision of ministers. Certainly, just like Governors, he is to be apprised of every decision by the ministers, but his concurrence is not necessary. The CJI explicitly held that the Lt Governor’s difference of opinion with ministers should never be based on a perception of a “right to differ”, but should be based on “constitutional trust”.<doc-sep>Irrespective of who declares victory, this judgment will not resolve the current, ongoing tussle between the L-G and the AAP-ruled Delhi government Is Delhi a city-state or a Nizamate? Is it a Union Territory or the National Capital Territory? Thanks to the judgment passed by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Government of NCT of Delhi versus Union of India, we now have the answer — it is very much a city-state (but not a full state) and it is very much the National Capital Territory (at least for now). There are two underlying causes that gave rise to this dispute: The most immediate one is the political competition between the Aam Aadmi Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party. The former is in power at the NCT, whereas the latter controls the levers of the Union Government and Delhi’s municipal councils. One is the political start-up (or maybe upstart), the other is the established incumbent (but likes to believe it's the insurgent). There’s bound to be conflict. The other, long term source of the problem is the shoddy drafting that went into Article 239AA into the Constitution. Like the 73rd and 74th Amendment, it half-delivers on the promise of greater devolution of powers to the residents of Delhi, but in effect creates an administrative quagmire. The constitutional recipe for division of powers between state and Centre is turned into an unappetising khichdi featuring too many authorities with discretionary and concurrent powers. At the best of times, this makes governance difficult. The ongoing tussle between the Delhi government and the lieutenant-governor was exacerbated by a terribly reasoned Delhi High Court judgment which effectively declared the LG the Nizam of Delhi who rules the NCT at his discretion, "aided and advised" by the elected Council of Ministers. In appeal, the Supreme Court had to first resolve the constitutional issues at stake — something that has taken about three years after the reference to decide. What the judgments say The three opinions of the judges on the Constitution Bench are more or less identical in conclusions, save for minor differences in approach through which they have arrived at those conclusions. They have concluded that while Delhi is not a "state" for the purposes of the Constitution in the same way that Tamil Nadu or Assam are "states", it is also purely not a Union Territory like the Andaman and Nicobar Islands or Chandigarh. Delhi's administrative arrangements are sui generis — necessitated by the peculiar nature of the city as the capital and its subsequent growth as a city. More importantly, they have tried to draw boundaries for the L-G's exercise of powers and discretion. This comes in both procedural terms as well as substantive limits. The L-G is not an independent authority with the power to halt the functioning of the government on his own simply because he takes a different view of the matter than the chief minister and his Council of Ministers. He has to first consult with the Delhi Council of Ministers in good faith, and if he finds that his concerns are not satisfied, he may refer the issue to the president. Even so, there are some substantive limits that the Supreme Court has tried to set out in this case as to on what basis the L-G may refer a matter to the president under clause (4) of Article 239AA. While Chief Justice Dipak Misra uses the terms "exceptional circumstances" and asks the L-G to keep in mind "the standards of constitutional trust and morality, the principle of collaborative federalism and constitutional balance, the concept of constitutional governance and objectivity and the nurtured and cultivated idea of respect for a representative government", Justice DY Chandrachud uses the more prosaic "substantial issues of finance and policy which impact upon the status of the National Capital or implicate vital interests of the Union" and Justice Bhushan says the even more terse “when it becomes necessary to safeguard the interest of the Union Territory.”. All three make it quite clear however, that the LG’s power to refer a matter to the President has to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine. With the reference being limited to the constitutional questions, the judges would not have been advised to go any further in trying to draw clearer boundaries on this. This will have to emerge on a case-by-case basis. That said, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 239-AA rests on sound foundation. What comes next In arriving at their conclusions, the judges have not just gone by interpretational techniques and precedents, but also the fundamental principles that underpin the constitutional government in India — parliamentary democracy and federalism. It was necessary to go into these issues because the conflict between the L-G and the Delhi government was not driven purely by personal dislike or partisan concerns. The AAP's success in Delhi is driven to a large extent by the frustration with dysfunction in Delhi's governance. This dysfunction can also be traced to the problematic drafting and compromised positioning of Article 239AA, and although the Supreme Court has not fully resolved all issues, it has set the framework for addressing them. Needless to say, irrespective of who declares victory, this judgment will not resolve the current, ongoing tussle between the L-G and the AAP-ruled Delhi government. The specific cases which resulted in this reference to the Constitution still have to be decided by the benches of the Supreme Court and the meaning of the substantive limits on the L-G's powers will become clearer as these case are decided. One hopes, for the sake of the residents of Delhi, it won't take another three years.<doc-sep>A big victory for the people of Delhi...a big victory for democracy... — Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) 1530683715000 If Modi govt had not withdrawn the powers of elected govt thro illegal orders, precious three years wud have been s… https://t.co/qnzC9TrzVu — Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) 1530701996000 IMPORTANT - Can Modi ji revoke 3 years 5 months of chaos in Delhi? Will Delhi people forgive BJP for ruining 3 yea… https://t.co/CepciCPpRM — Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) 1530681679000 REMINDER 1 - AAP Govt was formed in Feb 2015, three months later, In May 2015 , Modi Govt brought this notification… https://t.co/4wfOaReHP6 — Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) 1530671545000 REMINDER 2 - Modi Govt was formed in May 2014 & just 2 months later, Modi Govt brought a notification which took aw… https://t.co/p2P9qmgMAG — Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) 1530672357000 3-Under Sheila Dixit Govt, Aid & Advice of Elected Govt was binding on LG. LG was not free to reject schemes For Ke… https://t.co/fXdgxDIvnB — Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) 1530678234000 NEW DELHI: Heaving a sigh of relief over the Supreme Court verdict on the power tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre, the AAP leadership today accused the BJP dispensation at the Centre of creating "chaos" in the national capital in the last three-and-a-half years.Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal welcomed the apex court verdict as a "big victory" for the people of the national capital and democracy. "If Modi govt had not withdrawn the powers of elected govt through illegal orders, precious three years would have been saved. People of Delhi are grateful to judiciary. Today's order reinforces people's faith in judiciary (sic)," he tweeted.The news of a favourable judgement by the Supreme Court led to a festive scene at the AAP office on DDU Marg with party workers dancing to drum beats and distributing sweets. Partymen also celebrated at Kejriwal's residence "Can Modiji revoke 3 years 5 months of chaos in Delhi? Will Delhi people forgive BJP for ruining 3 years 5 months (sic)?," AAP chief spokesperson Saurabh Bhardwaj asked in a tweet.He drew a parallel between the previous Sheila Dikshit-led Congress government in Delhi and the current AAP dispensation and pointed out how the ruling party was obstructed from working. "AAP Govt was formed in Feb 2015, three months later, in May 2015, Modi Govt brought this notification which took away 'services' from AAP Govt. This means Sheila Dixit Govt had all control over her officers/employees, Kejriwal Govt was left with zero control (sic). ""Modi Govt was formed in May 2014 & just 2 months later, Modi Govt brought a notification which took away powers of Anti-Corruption branch. Means Sheila Dixit had ACB for 15 years but was taken away because Modi was too scared of Arvind Kejriwal and his ACB (sic)," Bhardwaj said in a series of tweets.He also said the provision of aid and advice of the elected government was binding on the Lieutenant Governor (LG) during Dikshit's rule, adding that it was done away with after Kejriwal became the chief minister. "Under Sheila Dixit Govt, Aid & Advice of Elected Govt was binding on LG. LG was not free to reject schemes. For Kejriwal Govt, LG is free to take decisions, has been rejecting all important decisions of Govt. CCTV, Door step delivery of Ration, Muholla clinics rejected or delayed (sic)," the AAP leader tweeted.In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court today held that the Lieutenant Governor did not have independent decision-making powers and was bound to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.The SC verdict may slow down the party's ongoing full statehood agitation because the court has "restored" Delhi government's powers and the movement was woven around the stand that the Centre and LG were not allowing it to work, party sources said.However, senior party leaders Raghav Chhadha and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia asserted that the movement will continue.Full statehood to Delhi had also been promised by the BJP and the Congress. It can be achieved through Constitutional amendment by Parliament. All political parties, especially the BJP will have to fulfil it, AAP spokesperson Chhadha said. "The full statehood movement will continue as a struggle by the Aam Aadmi Party and people of Delhi," he said.The judgment pronounced by Chief Justice Dipak Misra , who was heading a five-judge Constitution bench, also held that the LG could not act as an "obstructionist".It added that all the decisions of the council of ministers must be communicated to the LG, but that did not mean his concurrence was required. "There is no room for absolutism and there is no room for anarchism also," the court ruled.The decision comes as a major victory for the AAP government, which had been in a constant tug of war with the LG over the powers wielded by the two branches of the executive.<doc-sep>
The apex court ruled that the lieutenant governor does not have independent decision-making powers, and is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This verdict is being claimed by the AAP as a victory. The five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra on Wednesday pronounced its verdict on the power struggle between the lieutenant governor and the chief minister in Delhi. A big victory for the people of Delhi...a big victory for democracy... — Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) July 4, 2018 In delivering the verdict, the court stated in part, "There is no room for absolutism and there is no room for anarchism also." With regards to the Lieutenant Governor, who is appointed by the President, the court said this person cannot be obstructionist. The AAP has lobbied for Delhi to get be granted statehood; on this the Supreme Court refused. The Times of India editorial stated that now is the time for the Delhi government to start working and deliver – "A consequence of the brinkmanship by both sides has been that Delhi’s governance has suffered and ambitious election time promises made by AAP to Delhi voters were stalled." The tussle between the AAP and Lt. Governor's office first began in 2014. It started when the AAP registered cases against Reliance Industries Ltd, Mukesh Ambani, and UPA ministers M Veerappa Moily and the late Murli Deora for allegedly fixing gas prices. Reliance moved the High Court by challenging a 1993 notification of the centre that gave power to the Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch in probing union government employees. Since then, there has been a back and forth on the powers that both sides claim to have. "Much dirty linen has been washed in public and all the protagonists – the Centre, Delhi government and LG Anil Baijal – must heed the Supreme Court's call which also happens to coincide with the interest of Delhi’s hapless citizens, forgotten amidst BJP-AAP warfare" - The Times of India noted. In May 2015, the Lt. Governor appointed senior bureaucrat Shakuntala Gamlin as acting chief secretary of Delhi which Kejriwal objected to. In the first major confrontation, the government locked the office of the then Service Secretary Anindo Majumdar, who had issued notification of Gamlin's appointment. In December 2015, Delhi's bureaucrats went on mass leave for a day protesting the decision of the AAP to suspend two special home secretaries. Things came to a head when Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and three of his cabinet colleagues held a sit-in protest last month at the Lt. Governor Anil Baijal's office urging IAS officers to call off a strike. The strike in reference, which began in February, was in response to allegations of AAP lawmakers assaulting Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash. The sit-in was eventually called off after nine days. The verdict in essence means that the Lt. Governor has limited powers except when it comes to matters on land, public order and police. Former Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit stated that the verdict didn't change anything, citing Article 239 (AA) of the Constitution, which terms Delhi to be a union territory and not a state. Ms. Dikshit was the Chief Minister from 1998–2013 and stated that her government did have differences with the Lt. Governor, but not to the extent that has been seen in the past couple of years. She also stated that Delhi could only become a state through an act of Parliament. The passing of any resolution by the Delhi assembly will not be wise, she felt. Ms Dikshit said she was also someone who advocated statehood for Delhi and outlined its pros and cons, particularly that of the government not having police and land under its control. However, she also said that full statehood wasn’t necessarily a prerequisite for good governance. She cited the example of the Delhi Metro, which was started under Prime Minister Vajpayee, saying in part, "I went there, met Mr. Advani and then met Mr. Vajpayee. The L-G had been appointed by them and we worked very well together." Given the stalling of many projects, she advises the current Chief Minister to not take the approach of conflict and work with his colleagues to ensure the people of Delhi get the best government they can that works for them.