SC seeks balance in exercising powers for national capital's good governance

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that striking a balance on exercise of powers by the Delhi government and the Lt. Governor was important for good governance in the national capital as the Arvind Kejriwal government slammed the central government for saying that it had no executive powers to aid and advise the Lt. Governor.

Noting that anywhere in the world the status of the capital city was entirely different, the bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice R.K. Agrawal said that from 1992 (when Delhi got its first elected assembly and the government) till this day, such a situation has not arisen.

Assailing the central government for refusing to acknowledge Delhi government's powers under the Constitution, senior counsel Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the Delhi government, told the court that its stand was an "inconceivable argument" and "complete mutilation" of Article 239(AA).

Telling the court that "constitution has given face and identity to Delhi government which is accountable and the centre could not have a de facto control over the administration of national capital", he said that "they (Delhi government) can't be treated subservient to an over-riding authority of the Lt. Governor" who was sworn under the Constitution.

His stand came in the course of hearing of a batch of partitions by Delhi government challenging the Delhi High Court verdict that upheld the primacy of the Lt. Governor in Delhi's governance.

Delhi was given an assembly with an elected government by a special provision, by incorporation into the Constitution, of Article 239 (AA) or special provisions with respect to Delhi, by its 69th Constitutional Amendment in 1991.

Conceding that it had no footprints in the area of police, law and order and land, Subramaniam said that beyond this Delhi government can aid and advise the Lt. Governor on the rest of the subjects and in case of any difference of opinion, the matter would be sent to the President for final decision.

However, the court found unpalatable his argument that the Delhi government may not have a decision making power vis-a-vis police and law and order but it could still have a view on them as it was concerned with the safety and security of the citizens.

He said if the views of Delhi government were at variance with that of the Lt. Governor then same could be sent to the President for decision.

At this bench observed that on one side he conceded that the police, law and order and land were excluded from Delhi government's jurisdiction, but then he was trying to bring it back to his fold.

"What you are saying sounds that you can have a say even in the areas that are excluded" from the domain of Delhi government, observed Justice Sikri.

Taking the court through different phases of the administration of Delhi and comparing its special status with other existing Union Territories, Subramaniam told the court that though parliament kept to itself the authority to make laws for Delhi, but it left the executive authority with the elected government.

It is this exercise of executive authority by the Delhi government that distinguishes it from earlier administrative structures that governed Delhi including the existing Union Territories with assemblies, Subramaniam argued.

--IANS

pk/vd