Supreme Court of India(SCI) Ruling on Delhi AAP Govt Vs Lt Governor Power Tussle Wednesday July 04,2018

The Lieutenant Governor does not have independent decision-making powers and the real power must lie with the elected government, the Supreme Court of India(SCI)ruled on Wednesday July 04,2018 in a big win for Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the fight for control of Delhi.

"A balanced federal structure mandates that the union does not usurp all powers and the states enjoy freedom without any unsolicited interference from the centre," said the court, asserting that the Lt Governor must not be obstructionist. "A big victory for people of Delhi", said Mr Kejriwal, whose three-year rule in Delhi has been marked by protests and dharnas, most recently on sofas at Lt Governor Anil Baijal's home last month. "There is no room for absolutism and there is no room for anarchism also," the court said.


10 latest developments

1. "The cabinet must convey all decisions to the Lieutenant Governor but his concurrence is not required in all matters," the court said, making it clear that the Lt Governor is not the boss.
2. The top court emphasized that except for anything related to land, police and public order, the Lt Governor has no independent decision-making powers under the constitution.
3. "The Lt Governor is not the governor but an administrator in a limited sense. He is bound by the advice of cabinet advice in matters other than those exempted," the court said.
4. Reading out the verdict, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said the Lt Governor needs to work harmoniously with the Delhi government.
5. In 2016, AAP went to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order that the Lt Governor is the administrative boss of Delhi. The top court, disagreeing with the high court on Wednesday, said the Lt Governor "should not act in a mechanical manner and stall decisions of the Delhi cabinet".
6. "Now we don't have to get every file or decision cleared by the Lt Governor," said deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, wasting no time in ordering work on stalled decisions like the doorstep delivery of around 100 services.
7. Supreme Court's landmark verdict comes days after Mr Kejriwal spent nine days protesting in a visitors' room at Lt Governor Anil Baijal's house to get his attention after a series of run-ins.
8. AAP wanted Mr Baijal to step in and end an officers' boycott that started after Delhi's top bureaucrat, Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash, alleged in February that he had been attacked by AAP lawmakers at a late night meeting at Mr Kejriwal's home.
9. After the officers agreed to talks, Mr Kejriwal ended the protest but started a signature campaign for full statehood for Delhi, a demand that was pushed by the BJP until it took power at the centre.
10. The tussle started months after the AAP swept to power in Delhi in 2015, winning 67 of 70 seats and reducing the BJP to only three. AAP alleges that the BJP-led central government has since been exacting revenge and using the Lt Governor to block every decision taken by the Kejriwal government

The narrow issue was the power struggle between the popularly elected Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor appointed by the Centre but the Supreme Court substantially broadened its scope by sending a reminder of the need for political accommodation between the Centre and states

It did this via three concurring judgments that, together, invoked the principles of “Constitutional morality”, “collaborative federalism”, and “pragmatic federalism” to stress the need for an “element of trust” between high functionaries of the Central and state governments.

The verdict finds particular resonance given today’s fractured politics where functionaries at the Centre and states are often locked in a fierce political contest. And when divisions are sharpening with political realignments in the run-up to general elections.

“The element of trust is an imperative between Constitutional functionaries so that Governments can work in accordance with Constitutional norms. It may be stated with definiteness that when such functionaries exercise their power under the Constitution, the sustenance of the values that usher in the foundation of constitutional governance should remain as the principal motto. There has to be implicit institutional trust between such functionaries,” Chief Justice Dipak Misra wrote in the judgment for himself and Justices A K Sikri and A M Khanwilkar.

Indeed, it is “Constitutional morality” that comes as a refrain throughout the three verdict. Defining its basic principles, Justice D Y Chandrachud wrote: “Constitutional morality provides a principled understanding for unfolding the work of governance. It is a compass to hold in troubled waters. It specifies norms for institutions to survive and an expectation of behaviour that will meet not just the text but the soul of the Constitution.