Delhi Full Statehood Issue

Unconstitutional Expansion of Delhi’s Government Authority

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: ordinance making powers and related constitutional provisions and procedure

Mains level: Questionable constitutionality of the ordinance and the scope of court's verdicts

Central Idea

  • The recent promulgation of The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 by the President of India has sparked a debate concerning the scope of the Supreme Court’s verdict and the constitutionality of the ordinance.

Court’s Verdict and interpretations

  • In interpreting Article 239AA(3)(a), the Court ruled:
  1. It determined that the Legislative Assembly of the NCT Delhi has the authority with the exception
  2. The Court clarified that the executive power of the NCTD is co-extensive with its legislative power, encompassing all matters within its legislative jurisdiction.
  3. It established that the Union of India has executive power over three entries in List II, which the NCTD does not have legislative competence
  • Court’s verdict: Based on these interpretations, the Court concluded that the executive power over services falls exclusively under the Government of the NCTD. This interpretation aligns with the language of Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution.
  • However, the subsequent ordinance promulgated by the President on May 19, through the exercise of legislative power under Article 123, expanded the scope of excepted matters in Article 239AA(3)(a).

Facts for prelims

Article Description
Article 123 Empowers the President to issue ordinances during Parliament’s recess.
Article 239 Deals with the administration of Union Territories.
Article 239A Provides for the creation of a Legislative Assembly for the Union Territory of Delhi.
Article 239AA Contains special provisions for the Union Territory of Delhi, including the establishment of a Legislative Assembly and governance structure.
Article 368 Outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution.
Article 144 Deals with the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s judgments on all courts and authorities in India.
Article 213 Empowers the Governor of a state to promulgate ordinances during the recess of the state legislature.

Why the constitutionality of the ordinance in this regard is highly questionable?

  • Bypassing the constitutional amendment process: The ordinance expanded the scope of excepted matters in Article 239AA(3)(a). However, such an expansion would require a constitutional amendment under Article 368. By utilizing Article 123, which grants legislative power during the period of Parliament’s recess, instead of following the constitutional amendment process, the ordinance may be considered unconstitutional.
  • Limits of legislative power: The power conferred on Parliament under Article 239AA(3)(b) is to make fresh laws, not to directly amend Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution. Therefore, altering the scope of Article 239AA(3)(a) would require a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
  • Colorable exercise of power: By expanding the scope of excepted matters without amending the Constitution through the appropriate procedure, the ordinance may be seen as a colorable exercise of power. It is essential to adhere to the constitutional amendment process to ensure the validity and legitimacy of legislative actions.

Implications of the Court’s Judgment

  • Binding nature: When a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declares or interprets the law, its decision becomes binding on all courts and authorities in India according to Articles 141 and 144, respectively. The Court’s interpretation of Article 239AA(3)(a), which affirmed the exclusive executive power of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) over services, is legally binding on all courts and authorities. This means that the government and other entities must adhere to this interpretation.
  • Limits on executive power: The Court’s verdict clarified the extent of executive power held by the NCTD and the Union of India. This delineation of executive power sets clear boundaries and ensures a proper division of responsibilities between the NCTD and the Union government.
  • Requirement of constitutional amendment: The Court’s verdict highlighted the need for a constitutional amendment to alter the scope of Article 239AA(3)(a) and expanding the exceptions in Article 239AA(3)(a) would require a constitutional amendment under Article 368. This reaffirms the importance of adhering to the constitutional amendment process to ensure the integrity and legitimacy of any changes made to the Constitution.
  • Questioning the validity of the ordinance: The Court’s judgment raises questions about the validity of the subsequent ordinance promulgated by the President. The ordinance, which expanded the scope of excepted matters in Article 239AA(3)(a), may be deemed unconstitutional.

Conclusion

  • The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 raises constitutional concerns. Its expansion of excepted matters without a constitutional amendment is likely to be struck down. The ordinance is void ab initio and represents a colorable exercise of power. Only Parliament, through proper amendment procedures, can alter the scope of Article 239AA(3)(a).

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

Also read:

Power Struggle in Delhi: Balancing Democracy, Governance, and Accountability

 

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

Attend Now

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across Social Media platforms.

💥Mentorship New Batch Launch
💥Mentorship New Batch Launch