Disruptions in functioning of NCT of Delhi, LG 'kept in dark': Centre to SC

The Centre on Wednesday defended in the Supreme Court the passage of the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act, saying disruptions in the functioning of the NCT of Delhi have been witnessed as the Lieutenant Governor is often "kept in the dark" regarding the decisions pertaining to the national capital.

In an affidavit filed in response to an AAP government plea challenging the 2021 Act, the Centre said the Amendment Act seeks to streamline the governance of NCT of Delhi and cut down the conflict.

"It is submitted that the last several years have witnessed several instances of practical difficulties and disruptions in the functioning of the NCT of Delhi owing to the fact that the Lieutenant Governor is often kept in the dark regarding the decisions pertaining to the NCT of Delhi, despite the fact that even under the unamended GNCTD Act and Transaction of Business Rules, the Government of NCT of Delhi was required to inform the Lieutenant Governor regarding the administration of NCT of Delhi," the affidavit said.

 

The Centre also told the top court that from a bare reading of the statement of Objects and Reasons, it becomes clear that the amendment was made to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 to give effect to the interpretation of the provision of Article 239AA of the Constitution relating to the structure of governance in National Capital Territory of Delhi.

"The Amendment Act of 2021 in no manner attempts to override the substratum of the Constitution bench's decision or Article 239AA. The Amendment Act merely seeks to bring to and streamline the structure of governance in tune with the principles enshrined by the Constitution bench which are co-extensive power of the executive and legislature, the power granted by the elected government of NCT of Delhi as well as federal structure of the Constitution," it said.

The affidavit stated that the Amendment Act, 2021 is not vague and is not liable to be read down or declared unconstitutional on this ground.

"It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that certain expressions inserted by way of the Amendment Act, 2021 are vague such that it is difficult to define or limit its scope does not hold merit," the affidavit said.

"The Amendment Act of 2021 seeks to streamline the governance of NCT of Delhi and cut down the conflict by extending the likes of power which was already vested to legislative proposals, agendas, decisions or the orders already passed.

"The amended provision provides that the Lieutenant Governor before an Act is passed and a bill is presented to withhold his assent, the Lieutenant Governor shall exercise his power to withhold his assent and reserve the bill for consideration of the President if the bill incidentally encroaches upon the subject which falls outside the purview of the legislative assembly of Delhi," it said.

The Centre said that the purpose of the amendment is to make the system of governance more effective by requiring time-bound compliance.

The Central government had also sought a joint hearing of two separate petitions of the Delhi government on control over services and challenging the constitutional validity of the amended GNCTD Act, 2021 and the Transaction of Business Rules, which allegedly give more powers to the Lieutenant Governor respectively, saying they are prima facie correlated.

The plea by the Delhi government arises out of a split verdict of February 14, 2019, in which, a two judge-bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, both retired since, had recommended to the Chief Justice of India that a three-judge bench be set up to finally decide the issue of control of services in the national capital in view of its split verdict.

Justice Bhushan had ruled the Delhi government has no power at all over administrative services.

Justice Sikri, however, made a distinction. He said the transfer or posting of officers in top echelons of the bureaucracy (joint director and above) can only be done by the Central government and the view of the lieutenant governor would prevail in case of a difference of opinion on matters relating to other bureaucrats.