A

PROJECT
ON

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India

(Submitted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for B.A.LL.B (HONS)

Five Year Integrated course )
SESSION: 2020-2021
Submitted on: 29/05/2021

Submitted By: Supervised By:

Ankit Jindal Ms. Deeksha Sharma
Roll No. 11
SEMESTER: 4th SEC: A

University Five Year Law College

University of Rajasthan
Jaipur

1|Page
 DECLARATION

I, Ankit Jindal, hereby declare that this project titled “State (NCT of Delhi) v/s

Union of India ” is based on the original research work carried out by me under

the guidance and supervision of Ms .Deeksha sharma. The interpretations put

forth are based on my reading and understanding of the original texts. The books,

articles and website etc. which have been relied upon by me have been duly

acknowledged at the respective places in the text.

For the present project which I am submitting to the university, no degree or

diploma has been conferred on me before, either in this or in any other university.

Date :29/05/2021
Ankit Jindal
Semester – 4th
Section - A

2|Page
 CERTIFICATE

Ms. Deeksha Sharma

Date: 29th May, 2021
Faculty of university five year law college
University of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

This is to certified that Mr.Ankit Jindal , student of semester III-A has carried out
project titled “State (NCT of Delhi) v/s Union of India”, under my supervision.
It is an investigation report of his research project. The student has completed
research work in stipulated time and according to norms prescribed for the
purpose.

supervisor

3|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to those who generously took initiative and

helped in the successful completion of this project. I thank to them for their

inspiration and guidance towards preparation of this report. I own to my esteemed

teacher and supervisor, respected Prof. Sanjula Thanvi, Director, UFYLC, Dept.

of law, University of Rajasthan. I am highly indebted and my profound gratitude

to Ms. Deeksha sharma , University Five-year law college, University of

Rajasthan, Jaipur, who enabled me to make a project and provided me their

stimulus of writing this. I am grateful to my father Mr. Mahaveer Jindal for his

valuable advice, continuous support and guidance through various useful

discussions at different times during the tenure of making this project and her co-

operation led to great learning experience to me. My humble thanks to all my

colleagues and classmates who rendered whole hearted co-operation and

wonderful response.

Ankit Jindal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title …………………………………………………………………………….. I

Declaration of Originality …………………………………………………….. II

4|Page
Certificate ................................................................................................................. III

Acknowledgement …………………………………………………………….. IV

Table of contents………………………………………………………………….. V

Introduction of the Case…………………………………………………………… 6

Background ………………………………………………………………………. 7-8

Issues……………………………………………………………………………… 9

Facts………………………………………………………………………………. 10

Judgement……………………………………………………………………….. 11

Analysis………………………………………………………………………… 12

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………… 13

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………. 14

INTRODUCTION

Government of NCT of Delhi versus Union of India is a civil appeal heard before the Supreme
Court of India by a five-judge Constitution bench of the court. The case was filed as an appeal to
an August 2016 verdict of the Delhi High Court that ruled that the lieutenant governor of

5|Page
Delhi exercised "complete control of all matters regarding National Capital Territory of Delhi",
and was heard by the Supreme Court in November and December 2017.

The supreme court pronounced its judgment on 4 July 2018; it said the lieutenant governor of
Delhi had no independent decision-making powers and was bound to follow the "aid and advice"
of the Delhi chief-minister-headed council of ministers of the Government of Delhi on all
matters except those pertaining to police, public order and land.

Citation: (2018) 8 SCC 501

Coram – C.J. Dipak Misra, J. A.K. Sikri, J. A.M. Khanwilkar, J. D.Y. Chandrachud & J. Ashok
Bhushan

Judgement- The Court judged that the Chief Minister and not the Lieutenant Governor is the
executive head of the National Capital Territory (NCT) government.

BACKGROUND

On 4th July 2018, the five-judge Bench unanimously held that the Chief Minister is the executive
head of the NCT: CJI Misra's majority opinion , Justice DY Chandrachud's concurring opinion,
Justice Ashok Bhushan's concurring opinion

6|Page
 The tussle between the Chief Minister of Delhi, and Lt. Governor of Delhi eventually led to a
legal issue on the status of the National Capital Territory. The issue revolves around the
administrative powers of the Lt. Governor of Delhi in light of the special status of Delhi as a
Union Territory.

 The issues raised in this case was previously heard by the Delhi High Court in 2015 because of a
series between Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Retired Lt. Governor Najeeb Jung over
matters such as the appointment of a Chief Secretary without consulting the Lt. Governor and
the Chief Minister instituting corruption enquiries without the Lt. Governor’s concurrence.

 The confusion arose due to the special nature of Delhi which is a Union Territory with the
features of a State, such as having an elected legislature. The 69th Amendment to the
Constitution in 1992 added Article 239AA, which mandated an elected Assembly for Delhi. The
special provisions added through the 69th Amendment created confusion with respect to the
jurisdiction of the Delhi Government vis-a-vis the Centre.

 The Delhi High Court in its judgment delivered on 4th August 2016 held that Delhi continues to
be a Union Territory despite Article 239AA.  It further held that the special provisions
incorporated for Delhi do not overrule the effect of Article 239. Article 239 empowers the
Lieutenant Governor to act independently of his Council of Ministers. As a result, all
enquiries which were initiated by the Delhi Government without the concurrence of Lt. Governor
were declared illegal, such as the enquiries into the issuance of CNG permit to vehicles,
a financial enquiry into Delhi and District Cricket Association, among others. The concurrence
of the Lt Governor became mandatory for all administrative decisions of Council of Ministers of
Delhi.

 The Delhi Government challenged this decision of the Delhi High Court before the Supreme
Court. On February 2017, the two-judge Bench hearing the matter, referred it to a five-judge
Constitution Bench.

 On 4th July 2018, the Constitution Bench ruled that the Lt. Governor is bound by the aid and
advice of the Council of Ministers.

7|Page
 ISSUES

8|Page
  Whether Delhi holds the status of a Union Territory & Lieutenant Governor as its
administrative head or of a special State where the LG is bound by aid & advice of
Council of Ministers?
  Should Delhi be treated like a Union Territory with the Lt. Governor as its administrative
head or as a Special State where the Lt. Governor is bound by the advice of the Chief
Minister?

FACTS

 In April 2015, Najeeb Jung who was Lieutenant Governor of Delhi at that time made a
statement that he is not required to send information regarding Police, Land & Public
Order to Chief Minister’s office under any law. Home Ministry also supported the LG
stating that these three entries fall exclusively in the ambit of LG and therefore are not
covered by aid & advice of Chief Minister.

9|Page
  Home Ministry stated that Delhi’s state Anti -Corruption Bureau does not have the power
to investigate upon Central Government employees.
 The LG stayed the decision of the Delhi government to increase circle rates on
agriculture land.
 Government of Delhi constituted a commission to investigate into CNG fitness scam
allegation matter and said was overturned by Home Ministry by saying that the
government does not have the power to set up a commission. Therefore, declared it to be
void.
 Delhi government again constitutes a commission to investigate into a scam of Delhi &
District Cricket Association. It was declared invalid by the Home Ministry by stating the
same reason.
 All these continuous events led to a contradiction between the LG & the CM.

JUDGEMENT

D.Y. Chandrachud, gave a dissenting opinion in this case. In his opinion, the executive head of
Delhi Government is Chief Minister and not the Lt. Governor. But he also stated that Delhi’s
status is different from that of the other union territories. Parliament by law make any provision

10 | P a g e
for departure from Article 239(1), which makes the Lt. Governor executive head in a union
territory. There is a difference between a union territory & a union territory with a Legislature. In
the former one, the Union has all the control but there is a representative local government for
the people in case of a UT with Legislature. The institution in a democracy is impacted by
statesmanship which depends on those in whom who is on the position of decision making. J.
Chandrachud emphasises that it would be an error to understand democracy as the rule of
majority or a political system.

Democracy is a basic structure which cannot be infringed as held in Kihoto Hollohan v.

Zachillhu1  case. Enactment of Article 239AA was done by creating an object of a democratic
form of government. In a Union Territory the power vests with the Parliament to specify the
functions of Legislature of UT. The direct election rule mentioned in Article 239AA signifies the
participatory form of government. A Union Territory does not have a Legislature alike the State
which has exclusive power over the State list. Government of UT can legislate on matters of
State list with certain exception being laid down by the Parliament.

J. Chandrachud stated that aid & advice principle is only applicable where the Legislature has the
power to legislate and not on matters on which LG has exclusive power or exercises his
discretion. His opinion focussed on a representative form of government should be the executive
head. It was held that the LG’s power to act independently violates the provision of
representative government .Further, each & every matter should not be referred to the Union
because then the legislature will be of no use as the Central Government will be only one who
acts. The Legislature has been given the power and it should not be curtailed. The balance of
powers has to be maintained to follow the principle of checks & balances.

ANALYSIS

After going through this judgement the elected government of Kejriwal can now work without
any hurdles by the Central Government., Sometimes this is not a question about power or law,
1
AIR 1993 SC 412

11 | P a g e
rather it is about the ideologies of political parties and their will to surpass each other. By
obstructing the AAP government, they could impose allegations to the Delhi government for
different contemporary issues. The work should be done irrespective of the political agenda and
co-extensive with the other end of government. Hope both the officials, be it elected ones or the
nominated ones, govern their actions to do welfare of the people. It is submitted that both are
accountable to people and they are governing us in consonance of the Constitution. Therefore,
both type of government is equal and not any particular government should be provided with
excessive powers which curtails the freedom, liberty of citizens.

CONCLUSION

The judgement underlines the principle of democracy. It, by saying that power should vest in
elected ones, promotes freedom among the citizens to choose the representative even in the case

12 | P a g e
 of a Union territory. The judgement interprets Article 239AA and gives an outcome to favour
the representative democracy. It is good in a way for the people but cannot sustain in case on
union territory as there falls special responsibility of the Centre to intervene .

Bibliography

 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69467663
 https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-government-of-nct-delhi-v-union-of-india

13 | P a g e
  https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/special-status-of-delhi/nct-v-uoi

14 | P a g e