Decisions of Delhi govt will not require the concurrence of L-G, says Supreme Court

FOLLOW LIVE UPDATES

The court also upheld the powers of the LG under Article 239 AA (4) to differ with the decisions of the council of ministers and refer the matter to the President. The very purpose of communicating the decisions of the giver to the LG was to enable him to exercise this power if need be, the majority judgment by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri and A M Khanwilkar said.

Read the full text of the Supreme Court judgment 

On issues that the LG may Differ with the government, the Judges said, “The difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and the Council of Ministers should have a sound rationale and there should not be exposition of the phenomenon of an obstructionist but reflection of the philosophy of affirmative constructionism and profound sagacity and judiciousness”.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Justice D Y Chandrachud who wrote a separate concurring judgment said, “While it may not be possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of those differences which may be referred to the President by the Lieutenant Governor, it must be emphasised that a difference within the meaning of the proviso cannot be a contrived difference. If the expression ‘any matter’ were to be read as ‘every matter’, it would lead to the President assuming administration of every aspect of the affairs of the Union territory, thereby resulting in the negation of the constitutional structure adopted for the governance of Delhi.”

Read | AAP vs L-G: The decisions that prompted the Delhi govt to approach courts

Justice Chandrachud added that before the L-G decides to make a reference to the President, he “must, by a process of dialogue and discussion, seek to resolve any difference of opinion with a Minister and if it is not possible to have it so resolved to attempt it through the Council of Ministers. A reference to the President is contemplated by the rules only when the above modalities fail to yield a solution.”

The court also said that the proviso to Article 239 AA is in the nature of a protector to safeguard the interests of the Union on matters of national interest in relation to the NCT’s affairs. “Every trivial difference does not fall under the proviso. The proviso will, among other things, encompass substantial issues of finance and policy which impact upon the status of the national capital or implicate vital interests of the Union.”

Also read | Kejriwal calls SC verdict a ‘big victory for democracy’

The court ruled that the meaning of ‘aid and advise’ employed in Article 239AA(4) has to be construed to mean that the LG “is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and this position holds true so long as the Lieutenant Governor does not exercise his power under the proviso to clause (4) of Article 239AA”.

“The Lieutenant Governor has not been entrusted with any independent decision­making power. He has to either act on the ‘aid and advice’ of Council of Ministers or he is bound to implement the decision taken by the President on a reference being made by him”, the judgment added.

Read | Top quotes from SC’s judgment

Justice Ashok Bhushan also wrote a separate judgment agreeing with the view that the LG has to be kept informed of all the decisions, but this does not mean the decisions require his concurrence.