Determination of Control over Administrative Services between the Elected Delhi Government and the Union Government under Article 239AA

Introduction

The case Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors. dealt with the long-standing constitutional tussle between the elected Government of Delhi and the Union Government over control of “services,” i.e., the bureaucracy. Article 239AA grants Delhi a unique status as a Union Territory with an elected legislature. The key question was whether the Delhi Government has power over services, or whether this authority rests with the Lieutenant Governor (LG), acting on behalf of the Union Government.

On 11 May 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Delhi Government has both legislative and executive control over services, except for public order, police, and land. The judgment significantly reinforced the principles of representative democracy and federalism in the governance of Delhi.

Background

• Delhi is a Union Territory but has a legislative assembly under Article 239AA.

• Tensions arose between the elected Delhi Government and the LG, particularly regarding the appointment, transfer, and disciplinary control of civil servants.

• After the Aam Aadmi Party won a massive mandate in 2015, the LG frequently bypassed or overruled the elected government’s decisions.

• Notifications and circulars issued by the Union Government further restricted Delhi’s powers, leading to governance deadlock.

• In 2018, a Constitution Bench clarified some issues but left ambiguity about “services.”

• The matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench to determine whether Entry 41 of the State List (services) falls under Delhi’s control.

Key Developments

• Petitioner (GNCTD) argued that Article 239AA empowers the Delhi Government to control all matters in the State List except police, public order, and land. Services are part of Entry 41 of the State List and not excluded, hence within Delhi’s domain. They contended that excluding services would cripple representative democracy.

• Respondent (Union of India) argued that Delhi is a Union Territory, and ultimate control rests with the President through the LG. They claimed that Delhi cannot invoke Entry 41 since it lacks a State Public Service Commission, and central control over services is necessary for national interest and security.

Issues

1. Whether the Delhi Government has legislative and executive control over services under Entry 41 of the State List?

2. Whether control over services lies exclusively with the Union Government through the LG?

Current Status (Judgment)

• The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Delhi Government.

• The Court held that:

  • Services fall under Entry 41 of the State List, and since they are not excluded by Article 239AA, Delhi has legislative and executive power over them.

  • Civil servants must be accountable to the elected government, not the LG.

  • The LG is bound by the aid and advice of the Delhi Council of Ministers in all matters within the legislative competence of Delhi.

  • The Union Government cannot control services except for police, public order, and land.

Conclusion

The judgment marked a turning point in Delhi’s governance structure by affirming the democratic mandate of its elected representatives. By ruling that the Delhi Government controls services (excluding police, public order, and land), the Supreme Court upheld principles of federalism and accountability of the executive to the legislature. The verdict curtailed the LG’s interference in administrative matters and strengthened representative democracy in the National Capital Territory.