The debate centred on the allocation of powers between the Delhi administration, which is governed under Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution, and the central government. The case, which came before the Supreme Court at a time when two opposing parties were in power in the NCT and the centre and had a contentious public relationship, raised important issues about representative democracy and the federal structure. The article will go over how, in the first place, the Supreme Court allowed a status quo in which the central government made all the decisions (because of a favourable High Court ruling) by delaying the case’s hearing for several months, even though the dispute had daily ramifications for both governments. Judicial evasion is the practice of a court favouring one side in a lawsuit by choosing not to rule on a matter; (b) Secondly, even though they established the guidelines guiding the NCT government’s dealings with the central government, the Court’s five-judge bench declined to draw any precise boundaries between their different domains of authority when they ultimately heard and resolved the issue. Rather than intervene, the Court deferred to “political statesmanship” to settle minor issues. This made it possible for political players to interpret the Court’s ruling anyway they saw fit. This strategy, known as “judicial vagueness,” allows more powerful political players to exploit broad interpretation latitude left by abstract judicial rulings. (c) Third, despite the fact that two of the judges had served on that very bench, the judges rendered a split decision that was in direct opposition to the five-judge bench’s decision when a smaller bench of the Court was asked to rule on particular disputes. Judicial revisionism is the term for this tactic, in which the Court seems to deviate from its own binding precedent to support the executive in a particular case.
It is being submitted that, the status of Delhi has been described as Sui Generis under Article 239AA which gives it special status and distinguishes it from other Union Territories. It can be further clarified by noticing that in the case of NMCD vs State of Punjab[1], the Supreme Court held that all Union Territories cannot be put on the same pedestal. They further elaborated that just the insertion of Article 239AA and 239AB[2] itself reflects the intention of Parliament to accord Delhi a Sui Generis status and differentiate it from the other Union territories. The bench described Delhi as a class in itself. Similarly, the mere insertion of the Article in itself shows the intent of the parties to provide Delhi a special status in the constitution. It is also asserted by that Article 239 is an integral part of the Constitution and the foundation stone of Part VIII and that Article 239AA shall be read conjointly with Article 239[3] which provides that the ultimate administration with respect to Delhi shall remain with the President acting through its administrator. Thus, the actual essence of insertion must not be forgotten, and it shall be interpreted while keeping those in mind. But It should also be taken into consideration, that during the framing of the constitution of India, it was decided that Delhi should not be provided the status of a state. The Balakrishnan Committee Report 1987[4] studied the status of Delhi and has passed the recommendation that Delhi should continue to be a Union Territory, and, on that basis, the 1991 amendment act was passed. It is submitted, that the recommendations made by the committee should be considered to ascertain the true intention of the exercise of the constituent power of the Parliament for bringing about the said amendment as well as the GNCTD Act as the recommendations made by the committee highlighted on the special status of the capital.
Article 239AA of the Constitution has granted Delhi a special status and differentiated it from all the other Union Territories.[5] It has been granted a Westminster style of Democracy governed by a Lieutenant Governor and Council of Ministers to fulfil the aspirations of the people of Delhi, however there have been several clash in the powers of the State and the Union putting the interest of the natives at stake. Adding on to that, even though the provision provides Delhi with the title of “limited statehood”, there have been several instances questioning the status of Delhi due to its complex structure. Delhi, even though has been granted the title of a Union Territory cannot be compared to the other Union Territories as it is the National Capital of Indiana and similarly, comparing the structure to other states would be faulty as Delhi does not enjoy the title of a full state and is rather a quasi-state. This complexity in the structure of Delhi has created ample confusion in the interpretation of Article 239AA due to its vagueness and the administration of the city has been put at stake. Thus, it is safe to say that mere judicial interpretation will not suffice as the law is itself vague and lacks clarity and due to that, it is not reinterpretation of the Article that is needed but rewriting of the same.
Supreme Court has the authority to pass guidelines.
The parliament has been vested with the power to establish new states under Article 2[6] and it also may alter the areas and boundaries of the existing states under Article 3[7]. Further, the opening words of Article 239 are “save as otherwise provided by Parliament by law”, which mean that Parliament by law can provide different schemes of administration for such Union Territories. Apart from that, Article 239AA, subclause 7(a) also empowers the parliament to make certain provisions. Even though the power to interpret and amend the constitution has been vested with the parliament, the Supreme Court may pass guidelines to the parliament for directing to pass any law. That is evident in the case of Vishaka and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan[8] the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines and norms for the protection of women in the year 1997. In another case of Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT Of Delhi & Ors[9], the Supreme Court made recommendations to the parliament based on which the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013[10] was passed. Hence, the Supreme Court may pass recommendations to the parliament to protect the interest of the residents of Delhi.
Conversion of Union Territories to Full-fledged State
It must be noticed that certain union territories have been converted into a full-fledged state. Himachal Pradesh used to be a union territory; however, the State of Himachal Pradesh Act[11] was passed by Parliament, and the new state came into being on 25 January 1971. Further, in 1972, Manipur, Meghalaya, and Tripura were granted full statehood via the Northeast Reorganisation Act 1972, and they got removed from the Article 239A. Considering the special status of Delhi, it shall also be taken into consideration that Jammu and Kashmir had been provided a special status under Article 370[12] which was later revoked in 2016. In the case of SBI vs Santosh Gupta[13] (2016), the court held that the parliament has the legal competence to revoke the status of Jammu and Kashmir. It is brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court that the state Delhi was declared as the Capital of India in the year 1991 and then later got turned into a Union Territory under the States Reorganisation Act[14], 1956. In July 1947, Pittabhi Sitaramayya Committee[15] gave its report and declared the case of Delhi as a Special Case and made certain recommendations for making Delhi a separate state.
There is need for Conversion of Delhi to a State
The status of Delhi has been questioned on many incidents and the demand for statehood has been ongoing since decades. It must be noted that in case of Delhi, this demand for statehood first arose after the release of Balakrishnan Committee’s report[16] in the year 1987 and has been ongoing since then[17]. While examining the status of Delhi, ample attention was paid to the capital of various countries like Washington D.C, Canberra, and London.[18]It was concluded that the people of the capital territory must not be robbed off the basic human rights that is provided to even the smallest of villages.[19] It also must be noticed that almost every party who has ever came to power in the state of Delhi has demanded complete statehood for it.
As is mentioned in the moot preposition, the population has been growing rapidly in the capital city and hence there is a need for an effective representative democratic system to safeguard the rights of a large population. The absence of a fully empowered Legislative Assembly, results in an unaccountable form of government for the citizens residing in the capital city. It is important to note that when the decision was taken, the situation of Delhi was quite different, but now, Delhi is home to almost two crore people and is no longer just a union territory. Later, the “The State of Delhi Bill 2016’ was drafted and made public to the state to which the public had responded by demanding full statehood for Delhi.
The government of Delhi has been having tussle with the centre for a long time as the division of power is improper, granting full statehood would ensure a proper clear division of power and the issue would get resolved. It is evident that the population of Delhi has been growing quite rapidly and there is a need for a democratic government to handle the matters. The status of “Limited statehood” was granted under Article 239AA to provide the people to have their voices heard through a democratically elected head, however the basic powers such as Land, order and police have been vested with the Union Government limiting the control and administration of the state.
Granting complete statehood to Delhi would mean that the Democratically elected head by the people of the Delhi will have the responsibility over the people of Delhi This will in-turn solve the developmental issues of the Delhi. Since the issues of Police, land and order will finally be under the government of Delhi, the issues of proper implementation of law and order along with the proper allocation of resources will be solved.
India is a country that is democratic and gives importance to self-governance and provides detailed distribution of power between the State and the Centre under Article 245 and 246. However, in the case of Delhi, the distribution of power is not clear, and some matters are vested with the centre hindering with the self- governance of the territory. Entrusting major powers with the union government will hinder the development, lead to disenfranchisement, and would affect the democratic set up of the state[20]. While these powers are vested with the Union Government and the Lieutenant Governor, it is significantly noticeable that there have been cases where there was misuse of power by the Union Government. The ordinance passed by the Union Government was a clear violation of their power and it is unconstitutional in its nature.
Upon reviewing the intricate dynamics surrounding the allocation of powers in Delhi’s governance structure, I find myself reflecting on the fundamental principles of constitutional law and democratic governance.
The case study presented in this research paper illuminates the challenges posed by the unique status of Delhi as a Union Territory with partial statehood under Article 239AA. It underscores the importance of clarity and precision in legal frameworks to ensure effective governance and protect the rights of citizens. From a legal standpoint, it is evident that the ambiguity surrounding Delhi’s status has led to jurisdictional disputes and administrative inefficiencies. The Supreme Court’s role in interpreting constitutional provisions and guiding legislative action is crucial in resolving such disputes and upholding the rule of law. However, the complexities of Delhi’s governance cannot be addressed through legal mechanisms alone. As future legal practitioners, we must also recognize the socio-political dimensions of this issue. The demand for full statehood for Delhi reflects the aspirations of its residents for greater autonomy and democratic representation. In my opinion, while legal reforms and judicial interventions are essential, they must be complemented by broader political dialogue and public engagement. As stewards of the law, we have a responsibility to advocate for governance structures that promote transparency, accountability, and the equitable distribution of power. In conclusion, the quest for effective governance in Delhi requires a multifaceted approach that combines legal expertise, political consensus-building, and civic participation. As aspiring lawyers, we must remain committed to advancing the principles of justice and democracy in the pursuit of a more equitable and inclusive society.
[1] NMCD vs State of Punjab (1997)7 SCC 339.
[2] Article 239Ab, Indian Constitution.
[3] Article 239, Indian Constitution.
[4] Balakrishnan Committee report 1987.
[5] NMDC v. State of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 3
[6]Article 2, Constitution of India
[7] Article 3, Constitution of India
[8] Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
[9] Mukesh and Aur. V. State of NCT Delhi, (2017) 3 SCC 717
[10] Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013
[11] The state of Himachal Pradesh act.
[12] Louise Tillin, United in Diversity? Asymmetry in Indian Federalism, Publius 37.1 (2007) .
[13] SBI v. Santosh Gupta, (2017) 2 SCC 538.
[14] States reorganisation act, 1956
[15] Pittabhi Sitaramayya report, 1947.
[16] Balakrishnan Committee report, 1987.
[17] Statehood for Delhi: Chasing a Chimera, NIRANJAN SAHOO
[18] David Gordon, ed., Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities (London and New York: Routledge, 2006)
[19] ‘Statehood of Delhi’ and Centre-State Relations, by Vikram Choudhary
[20] Yogesh Pratap Singh and Afro’s Alam, Constitutional dilemma of Delhi, Live law.
Author: Dhanvi Choubey
Juris Centre 