Context: The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favour of the Delhi government on the issue of who controls the bureaucracy in the national capital.

Article 239AA

• Article 239AA granted Special Status to Delhi among Union Territories (UTs) in the year 1991 through the 69th Constitutional Amendment.

• It provided a Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers responsible to such Assembly with appropriate powers.

• That’s when Delhi was named as the National Capital Region (NCT) of Delhi.

• As per this article – Public Order, Police & Land in NCT of Delhi fall within the domain and control of Central Government which shall have the power to make laws on these matters.

• For remaining matters of State List or Concurrent List, in so far as any such matter is applicable to UTs, the Legislative Assembly shall have the power to make laws for NCT of Delhi.

Background of the Issue

• In 2015, a Union Home Ministry notification said that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi shall exercise control over “services”. 

• The Delhi government challenged this before the Delhi High Court which in 2017 upheld the notification. On appeal, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger constitutional Bench.

• In 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench in a unanimous verdict laid down the law that governs the relationship between Delhi and the Centre. The ruling was in favour of the Delhi government.

• While the Constitution bench decided the larger questions, the specific issues were to be decided by a two-judge Bench. 

• In 2019, two judges delivered a split verdict on the specific issue of “services.” The split verdict then went to a five-judge Constitution Bench, which has now delivered its verdict.

What was the issue before the Supreme Court?

• The limited issue for the consideration of this Constitution Bench only relates to the scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and Delhi with respect to the term services.

• Simply put, the court had to decide if it was the Delhi government or the Union government that had legislative and executive control over the capital’s bureaucracy.

What was the Central and State Government’s stand on the issue?

• The Central Government has consistently maintained that because Delhi is the national capital and the face of the country, it must have control over administrative services, which include appointments and transfers.

• On the other hand, the Delhi government has argued that in the interest of federalism, the elected representatives must have power over transfers and postings.

What was the Supreme Court’s verdict on this issue?

• The Supreme Court has held that the Delhi government will have legislative and executive control over administrative services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) except with regard to public order, police and land.

• The court said that the Delhi government, much like other States, represents the representative form of government and any further expansion of the Union’s power will be contrary to the Constitutional scheme.

• The Court pointed out that if officers stop reporting to ministers or do not follow their instructions, the principle of collective responsibility will be affected.

• Moreover, if the officers feel that they are insulated from the control of the elected government that they are serving, then they become unaccountable or may not show commitment towards their performance.

Key takeaways

1. Disagreement with Justice Bhushan’s Judgment: The Supreme Court stated that it does not agree with Justice Ashok Bhushan’s judgment that the Delhi government has no power over services.

2. Article 239A and Legislative Assembly for NCT: The Supreme Court highlighted that Article 239A establishes a legislative assembly for the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The members of the legislative assembly are elected by the electorate of Delhi, and the interpretation of Article 239A should support representative democracy.

3. Limits of Power: The court clarified that the control over services does not extend to areas related to public order, police, and land.

4. Delhi Government Represents Representative Form of Government: According to the Supreme Court, the Delhi government, like other states, represents the representative form of government. Any expansion of the central government’s power would contradict the Constitutional scheme.

5. Impact on Ministers’ Control: The court noted that if administrative services are excluded from the legislative and executive domains, ministers would be excluded from controlling civil servants responsible for implementing executive decisions.

6. Executive Power and Existing Law: The court clarified that the executive power of the state is subject to existing union laws.

7. Principle of Collective Responsibility: The Supreme Court emphasized that if officers do not report to ministers or fail to follow their instructions, the principle of collective responsibility will be affected.

8. Triple Chain of Accountability: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud highlighted that denying democratically elected governments the power to control officers would render the principle of the triple chain of accountability redundant.