CM, Council of ministers should accept that Delhi is not state: SC

The Supreme Court today said the elected government must accept the "constitutional position" that Delhi is not a state, even as it ruled that the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the Council of Minister's advice and has no independent decision-making power.

In its landmark judgement on the power struggle between the Delhi government and the Centre, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also said that none of the authorities in Delhi, the government led by the Chief Minister or the LG, should feel that they have been "lionized".

"The constitutional amendment does not perceive a situation of constant friction and difference which gradually builds a structure of conflict. At the same time, the council of ministers being headed by the Chief Minister should be guided by values and prudence accepting the constitutional position that the NCT of Delhi is not a state," CJI Misra, who wrote the judgement for himself and on behalf of Justices A K Sikri and A M Khanwilkar, said.

The court said that difference of opinion between the council of ministers and the LG should never be based on the perception of 'right to differ' and the term 'on any matter' should not be taken to such a level that the differences should become a norm.

"The authorities in power should constantly remind themselves that they are constitutional functionaries and they have the responsibility to ensure that the fundamental purpose of administration is the welfare of the people in an ethical manner. ...

"There is requirement of discussion and deliberation. The fine nuances are to be dwelled upon with mutual respect. Neither of the authorities should feel that they have been lionized. They should feel that they are serving the constitutional norms, values and concepts," the verdict said.

Two other judges of the bench, Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, wrote separate but concurring judgements.

The apex court said that as per the Rules of Business, the LG has to be apprised of every decision taken by a minister or the council of ministers, but that did not mean that the LG should raise an issue in every matter.

The bench said if the expressions 'in case of difference' and 'on any matter' were construed to mean that though the LG could differ on any proposal, the expectations of people would lose its purpose in simple semantics.

"The difference of opinion must meet the standards of constitutional trust and morality, the principle of collaborative federalism and constitutional balance, the concept of constitutional governance and objectivity and the nurtured and cultivated idea of respect for a representative government," it said.

"There should not be exposition of the phenomenon of an obstructionist but reflection of the philosophy of affirmative constructionism and a visionary," the bench said.