Why in the News?

Over the past decade, the Aam Aadmi Party’s government in Delhi has been in a constant legal battle with the Centre over the city’s special constitutional status and how it should be governed.

What is the Constitutional status of Delhi? 

• Union Territory with Special Status – Delhi is a Union Territory (UT) but has a legislative assembly and council of ministers, unlike most other UTs. It is governed under Article 239 and Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution.
• Limited Legislative Powers – The Delhi Legislative Assembly can make laws on subjects in the State List and Concurrent List, except for police, public order, and land, which remain under the control of the Central Government (Article 239AA(3)(a)).
  • Three Power Centers – Governance in Delhi is divided among:
  • Chief Minister and Council of Ministers (elected government)
  • Lieutenant Governor (L-G) (appointed by the President)
  • Union Home Ministry (exercises control over law, order, and services).
• L-G’s Role and Discretionary Powers – While the L-G is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, they can refer matters to the President in case of disagreements, giving the Centre overriding authority (Article 239AA(4)).
• Sui Generis (Unique) Model – The Supreme Court has ruled that Delhi’s governance model is neither like a full-fledged state nor like a regular Union Territory, making it a special case within India’s federal structure.

How does Delhi differ from other Union Territories and States?

What are the legal battles between Delhi and the central Government? 

• Control Over Bureaucracy (Services Department Dispute): The Centre transferred control of Delhi’s bureaucracy (services) to the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) through a 2015 notification. The Supreme Court (2023) ruled in favor of the Delhi government, giving it power over services except police, land, and public order. However, the Centre later amended the GNCTD Act (2023) to override this decision, restoring L-G’s power over services.
  • Example: The Delhi government’s attempt to appoint bureaucrats without L-G’s approval was blocked.
• Lieutenant Governor’s Special Powers (Interpretation of Article 239AA): The Centre argued that the L-G has overriding authority over all governance matters, while the Delhi government maintained that L-G must act on the aid and advice of the elected government. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the L-G must follow the advice of the Delhi government, except in matters explicitly under the Centre’s control.
  • Example: The L-G blocked multiple decisions of the Delhi Cabinet, including the ‘Doorstep Ration Delivery’ scheme, citing procedural issues.
• Control Over Law and Order (Police and Land Disputes): Delhi’s elected government has no control over law and order (including Delhi Police and land administration), leading to governance challenges. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld Centre’s control over these subjects as per Article 239AA.
  • Example: The Delhi government sought control over Delhi Police after riots in 2020, but the Centre refused, citing law and order as a central subject.

What are the implications due to Governance Crisis and Political Fallout?

• Administrative Paralysis and Policy Delays: Frequent clashes between the Delhi government and the L-G have stalled decision-making, leading to delays in key projects and governance paralysis.
  • Example: The Mohalla Clinics initiative for public healthcare faced repeated delays due to bureaucratic approvals and interference by the L-G’s office.
• Reduced Accountability and Bureaucratic Resistance: With dual control over administration, bureaucrats often face conflicting orders from the elected government and the Centre, leading to inefficiency.
  • Example: The Delhi Jal Board’s water supply projects were disrupted as officers refused to follow the Delhi government’s directives, citing L-G’s authority.
• Political Tensions and Electoral Ramifications: The governance crisis has deepened political rivalries, with the Delhi government accusing the Centre of undermining democracy, while the Centre claims Delhi needs central oversight due to its national capital status.
  • Example: The arrest of CM Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy CM Manish Sisodia in the excise policy case led to political instability and weakened AAP’s governance.

What could happen after the election result in future?  

• Stronger Central Control and Policy Alignment: With the BJP in power in both the Centre and Delhi, governance could become more streamlined as there would be no friction over administrative control.
  • Example: The L-G’s role in decision-making would likely diminish in practice, as seen in BJP-ruled Puducherry, where Centre-state coordination improved after a BJP-backed government took over.
• Reversal of AAP’s Key Policies: The BJP might roll back or modify key AAP policies, such as free electricity, water subsidies, and education reforms, aligning governance with its national agenda.
  • Example: Similar to how the BJP government in Madhya Pradesh altered welfare schemes after replacing the Congress government, a BJP-led Delhi might review or discontinue AAP’s flagship initiatives.

Way forward: 

• Clearer Division of Powers – Amendments to Article 239AA or a judicial clarification can establish a more balanced framework, ensuring smooth governance without frequent conflicts between the Centre and the Delhi government.
• Strengthening Cooperative Federalism – A structured dialogue mechanism between the Centre, L-G, and the elected government can improve coordination.

Mains PYQ:

Q Discuss the essentials of the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act and anomalies, if any that have led to recent reported conflicts between the elected representatives and the institution of the Lieutenant Governor in the administration of Delhi. Do you think that this will give rise to a new trend in the functioning of the Indian federal politics? (UPSC IAS/2016)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now