• In Depth

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

Who should govern Delhi? The big question before the five-judge Constitution Bench.
Newly sworn in Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Anil Baijal being congratulated by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal at Raj Niwas, in New Delhi. File Photo: V. Sudershan

Newly sworn in Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Anil Baijal being congratulated by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal at Raj Niwas, in New Delhi. File Photo: V. Sudershan

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on November 2 commenced hearing a series of appeals filed by the Delhi government for laying down the law on whether the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) can unilaterally administer the Capital without being bound by the “aid and advice” of the elected government.

The Delhi government had approached the Delhi High Court claiming the frequent disputes arising between the Arvind Kejriwal government and the Lieutenant-Governor (earlier Najeeb Jung and now Anil Baijal) was "a classic case of federal dispute." But the High Court struck it down and upheld the L-G’s power over the police, land, public order as well as “services.”

The Kejriwal government wants the Supreme Court to lay down the law on whether the L-G can unilaterally administer the National Capital without being bound by the “aid and advice” of the elected government.

The Union government, however, argues the Delhi government is at best meant to take care of the “daily utilities” of the National Capital and the "real power to administrate the National Capital" is vested with the President and the Union of India.

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

It’s an elected government at the Centre too, SC told

 Power tussle: The Centre said the Delhi High Court, while holding the L-G as the administrative head of the Capital, had followed earlier SC judgments.

Power tussle: The Centre said the Delhi High Court, while holding the L-G as the administrative head of the Capital, had followed earlier SC judgments.

The Centre argued on Thursday that it is an elected government at the Centre and there is nothing undemocratic about the Union Government and the President, through the Lieutenant-Governor, exercising complete executive power over the National Capital.

Arguing before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh said even “the complete control on finances is exercised by the Lieutenant-Governor”.

This marked the third day of arguments from the Centre’s side in the power tussle between the Union government and the AAP government in Delhi over the governance of the National Capital.

Referring to the powers vested with the President, Centre and the L-G, Mr. Singh said they were vested with the power to decide what will be the official language of a particular locality in Delhi depending upon the nature of the population living there, and even this decision-making authority was not with the local government.

He said the Delhi High Court, while holding the L-G as the administrative head of the national capital, had followed earlier apex court judgments.

Mr. Singh said the Constitution recognises that the Union has so much at stake in the affairs of the National Capital and continuous control has to be maintained in almost every subject of governance and administration. The law officer argued that Constitution provides “no executive, exclusive power” to the Delhi government.

Mr. Singh argued that Delhi government cannot say “I am not a State but give me the privileges of a State”.

As an example that Delhi is not a State but a Union Territory under the control of the President and the Centre, Mr. Singh referred to Article 3 of the Constitution.

The Article mandates that in the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States, a referendum has to be made to the State legislature concerned. However, in the case of a Union Territory, no such referendum is made.

Read Original ArticleRead More

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

Delhi belongs to the entire nation: Centre to apex court

NEW DELHI, 09/04/2013: Supreme Court of India in New Delhi on April 10,  2013. 
Photo: S. Subramanium

NEW DELHI, 09/04/2013: Supreme Court of India in New Delhi on April 10, 2013. Photo: S. Subramanium

Delhi does not belong just to the people of Delhi but to the entire nation and the final word of governance of the National Capital lies with the President and the Union government, the Centre told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

“What will happen if tomorrow or in the near future an elected government (in Delhi) decides that Republic Day cannot be held in the traditional route but somewhere else?,” Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, for the Centre, posed the question before a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

The Bench is hearing the Centre in a batch of a dozen appeals filed by Delhi government challenging an August 4 judgment of the Delhi High Court declaring the Lieutenant-Governor as the sole administrator of the National Capital Territory.

Mr. Singh, on his legs for the second consecutive day of arguments before the Bench, argued that the L-G is not bound by the aid and advice of Delhi’s Council of Ministers. Delhi has been conferred a special status among Union Territories and it cannot wear the mantle of a State.

Questioning this contention, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, on the Bench, observed that the L-G could, of course, exercise his discretion in certain areas, but it cannot mean that he is completely outside the aid and advice of the Delhi Cabinet.

When Chief Justice Misra asked whether L-G can keep all the powers to himself, Mr. Singh responded that though the L-G “cannot take a decision or pass orders on his own, all decisions of the government prior and after must be communicated to the L-G”. The Delhi government, in short, has to work with the L-G.

Responding to Delhi government’s submissions made earlier that the L-G cannot assume all the powers and thus shortchange a democratically-elected government which carries with it the aspirations of the people, Mr. Singh said it was not undemocratic for the Centre to assume control as it is contemplated in the Constitution.

Read Original ArticleRead More

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

Delhi govt’s job is to take care of ‘daily utilities’: Centre

  Rule of the land  The Centre and the Delhi government are locked in a turf war on who has administrative power over the Capital.

Rule of the land The Centre and the Delhi government are locked in a turf war on who has administrative power over the Capital.

The Delhi government is at best meant to take care of the “daily utilities” of the National Capital. The real power to administrate the National Capital is vested with the President and the Union of India, the Centre opened its innings on Tuesday before a Supreme Court Constitution Bench.

The President and the Union of India, and not the local government, is vested with the power to govern Delhi – “a centrally-administered area with special features”, Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh submitted before the five-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

The Centre and the Delhi government are locked in a turf war over who has administrative power over the National Capital and whether the Lieutenant-Governor can take unilateral decisions without being bound by the aid and advice of the elected government of Delhi.

Mr. Singh said Delhi government wants “uncontrolled, vertically divided executive power”. “But when the power is not vested in you, how can you exercise it? To spend money, you have to have some in your pocket,” the law officer submitted.

Mr. Singh said the “special status” given to Delhi is as regards the other Union Territories. This does not elevate Delhi to the status of a ‘State’. He said the Constitution is specific about provisions concerning the States, and Delhi does not figure in any of these provisions. He argued that the Constitution is silent about giving co-extensive executive and legislative powers to the Delhi government. The court should not interpret something which is not there in the Constitution.

Mr. Singh said the Constitution recognises that the Union has so much at stake in the affairs of the National Capital and continuous control has to be maintained in almost every subject of governance and administration. The law officer argued that Constitution provides “no executive, exclusive power” to the Delhi government.

Mr. Singh argued that Delhi cannot say “I am not a State but give me the privileges of a State”.

As an example that Delhi is not a State but a Union Territory under the control of the President and the Centre, Mr. Singh referred to Article 3 of the Constitution. The Article mandates that in the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States, a referendum has to be made to the State legislature concerned. However, in the case of a Union Territory, no such referendum is made.

In reference to the Delhi government’s request for a “harmonious construction” between the executive and legislative powers of Delhi and the Centre, as envisaged under Article 239AA (4) and its proviso, Mr. Singh quoted the noted jurist H.M. Seervai, saying “don't create disharmony and then talk about harmony”.

Mr. Singh rejected Delhi government’s description of the L-G as a “viceroy” and a “suprema lex”. Earlier in the day, senior advocate Shekhar Naphade wrapped up a nine-day marathon session of arguments for the Delhi government, which said the L-G can only use his discretion as per a law, the rest he has to follow the aid and advice of the Delhi Council of Ministers.

“If the executive function of the Union over Delhi is retained, it would have been specifically provided for in the Constitution. We are reading into the Constitution a power that does not exist. The Constitution is silent. Therefore, I have the executive power. The L-G holds a much subordinate position compared to the State Governor,” Mr. Naphade argued in the morning.

Read Original ArticleRead More

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

‘No tug-of-war if same party runs Delhi, Central govts’

Rajeev Dhavan

Rajeev Dhavan

After days of legal arguments before a Constitution Bench on the power tussle between Centre and the Delhi government, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said on Thursday that the tug-of-war would not have taken place had the same party been in power at the Centre as well as in Delhi.

Appearing for the Delhi government before the five-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Mr. Dhavan said that in the past when the same party was in power at the Centre and in Delhi, a “simple request” from the State to the Union government would get things moving. Different parties in power left them at loggerheads, with the Lieutenant-Governor constantly trying to convince Delhi that he was “bigger” than its elected government.

Mr. Dhavan said the Lieutenant-Governor was bound by the aid and advice of Delhi’s Council of Ministers. “The Chief Minister is an elected head. The Council of Ministers is not nominated as in the Union Territory of Puducherry, but are elected; and only 10% of the elected representatives become Ministers,” he said.

The senior lawyer said the power of the Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Lieutenant-Governor is derived from the people. The Lieutenant-Governor could not have a difference of opinion on every matter. “Only if I [the Delhi government] cross my powers and Delhi is under threat as it was during the Jat agitation, the Lieutenant-Governor can intervene,” he said.

Mr. Dhavan said the Lieutenant-Governor does not run Delhi; he can only intervene, encourage or warn or refer a matter to the President. “How can he run the allocation of work and personnel in different departments of the government which have sub-departments? Can he say this department will have this officer? It is not his role to transfer personnel...”

However, the court asked whether the government could have such absolute executive powers.

Its powers are subject to scrutiny and difference of opinion from the Lieutenant-Governor. “They [the Council of Ministers] cannot function as they like,” the Bench said.

Read Original ArticleRead More

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

‘Delhi govt is responsible to people and legislature’

A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi

A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi

The Constitution envisages Delhi to have a representative government which is responsible to the people and the legislature, the Delhi government argued before a five-judge Constitution Bench on Wednesday.

The Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra heard senior advocates Indira Jaising and Rajeev Dhavan on the question of the constitutional balance of equation between the Delhi government and the Centre over the administration of the National Capital.

Ms. Jaising argued that the Centre is not without remedy if a State government has gone rogue and is not implementing or complying with its laws.

The senior advocate pointed to Article 257(1) which mandates the Union’s “control” over the States in certain cases.

The Article provides that the executive power of every State shall be exercised in a way which will not impede or prejudice the powers of the Union government. If so, the Article clarifies that the Union’s executive power will extend to “giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose”.

Earlier, senior advocate P. Chidambaram had argued that the legislative powers of the Lieutenant-Governor, as a delegate of the President, is limited before that possessed by the Delhi Legislative Assembly composed of elected representatives of the people.

He had referred to Section 24 of the Government of National Capital Territory Act of 1991 to show that in the case of a Bill passed by the Assembly, the L-G can assent, withhold, refer to the President or, lastly, return if it is not a Money Bill.

If the Bill is returned and the Delhi Assembly passes the Bill again, with or without including the amendments suggested by the L-G, the latter has to either give his assent to the Bill or send it to the President in case he has any fundamental objections to it.

“First time the Bill is sent to him, he has four options. The second time he has only two. He has to bow to the will of the people,” Mr. Chidamabaram had submitted.

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, also appearing for the Delhi government, said his client does not claim to be “the monarch of all that it sees” but should be allowed to function within the area carved out for an elected government within the democratic framework.

Read Original ArticleRead More

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

LG making mockery of democracy: Delhi govt.

 The Delhi Secretariat. File

The Delhi Secretariat. File

The AAP government on Thursday accused the Delhi Lieutenant Governor in the Supreme Court of making a “mockery of democracy”, saying he was either taking decisions of an elected government or substituting them without having any power.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which is hearing pleas on who enjoys supremacy in governing the national capital, was told by the Delhi government that either the President, or the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers had the power in event of difference of opinion between the government and the LG over an issue.

Senior advocate P. Chidambaram, appearing for the Arvind Kejriwal government, referred to the provisions of statutes including the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act and the Transaction of Business of the GNCTD Rules and said, “the LG is required to act as per aid and advice and, in case differences, the President will decide and there is no third way. The LG has no power.”

“But what is happening is that the Lieutenant Governor is taking decisions and substituting the decisions of the elected government...What the LG is doing is mockery of democracy,” he told the bench, which also comprised Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

On the issue of referring a matter to the President, he said only those matters, which deserved to be escalated to the President, should be referred, otherwise the President will be left with the administrative issues of Delhi only.

Mr. Chidambaram then dealt with the scenario following the Delhi High Court verdict that had held that the LG was the administrative head and said, “Now, in every matter, the LG is saying that you are denuded of power and I will decide”.

The policy decisions are the basis of an elected government and interference is “fine” if any decision is “ultra vires” of the Constitution or the Act, he said.

He also referred to the provisions of the Delhi Fire Services Act and said the vacancies in the department have to be filled by the State government.

“We do not have to understand the meaning of government from the statute. We will go back to the Constitution,” the bench said and enquired about who has been making appointments in schools run by the Delhi government.

“It is Directorate of Education (DoE) of Delhi government,” Chidambaram replied, adding that there was 10,312 posts vacant in DoE presently.

So far as the issue of transfer, posting of IAS, IPS and IFS officers are concerned, the power of central government and the LG are already there, the senior lawyer said.

The Delhi government is not being allowed to do these functions with regard to other officers and staff, he said concluding his arguments. The court would resume hearing on the petitions on November 14.

Read Original ArticleRead More

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

‘Delhi LG thinks he is the Viceroy’

HYDERABAD (AP) -16-09-2013 - BL / *FILES* - P. Chidambaram , Union Minister for Finance in Hyderabad on 16-9-13 -PHOTO: P_V_SIVAKUMAR

HYDERABAD (AP) -16-09-2013 - BL / *FILES* - P. Chidambaram , Union Minister for Finance in Hyderabad on 16-9-13 -PHOTO: P_V_SIVAKUMAR

The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not a “Viceroy” but simply an agent of the President whose powers depend on the pleasure of the President, senior advocate P. Chidambaram submitted on behalf of the Delhi AAP government in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “He is not what he thinks he is today – a Viceroy,” Mr. Chidambaram said in his opening statement to a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

While the court agreed that the LG cannot intervene in the day-to-day functioning of the democratically elected government, Mr. Chidambaram said the decision to have an elected government in the National Capital was made because the people had found it necessary.

The 69th Constitutional Amendment, introducing an elected government to the National Capital, was passed by a “very, very special majority of the people’s representatives because they felt that there was something deficient in the Constitution.”

“This court has to look into what were the sentiments of the people to bring in these special provisions for Delhi. Your Lordships should not interpret the special provisions in such a way that it diminishes democracy. You should interpret the provisions to advance a republic and democratic form of government...,” Mr. Chidambaram said.

Read Original ArticleRead More

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

Difference of opinion between LG and Delhi govt. should not be trivial or contrived: CJI

Delhi's Lt. Governor Anil Baijal

Delhi's Lt. Governor Anil Baijal

The Lieutenant Governor (LG) cannot differ with each and any administrative decision of the Delhi government. Though having every authority to differ, his disagreement with the Delhi government should not be “trivial or contrived, but substantive,” Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra orally observed on Tuesday.

Aid and advice (of the Delhi government) should be accepted and respected unless there is an abuse of authority, Chief Justice Misra observed on the second day of a full length hearing by a Constitution Bench on the power tussle between the Centre and the AAP government over the LG’s administrative powers.

“The intervention [of the LG] does not mean he will have confrontation. It should be fact and issue oriented on objective parameters,” Chief Justice Misra said.

The LG should conduct his constitutional duties, keeping in mind factors like he is an “august head, keeping in mind the special status of Delhi as the National Capital, what was intended by Parliament in the 69th Constitutional Amendment, not act in a way to defeat the intent of the Constitutional provision of Article 239AA of harmonious governance and, most importantly, citizenry's trust,” the Chief Justice said.

 

“He (LG) cannot supplant the administration,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed from the Bench.

Justice Ashok Bhushan remarked that it was not constitutionally contemplated that one man's concurrence would be required for each and everything that an entire ministry does.

'LG, however, need not concur with everything'

Chief Justice Misra observed that the LG, however, need not concur with everything. “But on what matters can there be differences of opinion?” he said.

The court said it did not want to hypothesise the parameters within which differences of opinion could be had.

Delhi government counsel and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium agreed that in “egregious situations where there is palpable abuse of authority, the LG can indeed intervene as a delegate of the President.”

Mr. Subramanium described the LG as a watchdog. He submitted that the LG can intervene if, for example, policies of the Delhi government affect institutions of national importance.

“He can intervene and disagree if policies of the Delhi government amount to manifest transgression. For example, the use of entire monuments for some social occasions. In such cases the LG can step in. He is the ,” Mr. Subramanium submitted.

But in the present case, Mr. Subramanium submitted, the LG has been intervening in the day-to-day functioning of the government.

Files pending for over a year: counsel

“From functioning of mohalla clinics to appointment of lawyers for the Delhi government, he has intervened. In some cases, the files have been pending for over a year,” he submitted. “Most innocuous issues are stowed away,” he added.

Justice Chandrachud pointed out from the Conduct of Business Rules of the Delhi government that there were some proposals that had to be “essentially submitted” to the LG for his concurrence, whereas some could be enforced the moment they are communicated to the LG.

Mr. Subramanium made the position of the Delhi government clear, saying that while the overarching supremacy of Parliament to make laws for the National Capital Territory is acknowledged, the executive functions of the democratically elected government of Delhi cannot be “eclipsed.” The Delhi government had its own legislative sovereignty and concurrent executive ability.

Barring the LG's discretion in certain fields, the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers was binding on him, Mr. Subramanium said.

He termed Article 239AA a “provision extraordinaire,” which has abrogated the President's power to delegate powers under Article 239 (1) to the Governor as far as the National Capital is concerned.

“Except in the subjects of police, public order and land for which the LG administers as a delegate of the Centre, the rest is participatory governance,” he said.

At one point, Justice A.K. Sikri asked about the actual role of the President when the LG refers to him an issue on which the latter has a difference of opinion with the Delhi government.

Does the President actually act in his personal capacity or on the aid and advice of the Union, Justice Sikri asked.

Read Original ArticleRead More

Delhi-Centre turf spat: Arguments and counter-arguments

Delhi LG cannot simply sit on files and stultify governance: Justice Chandrachud

 Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. Photo: S. Subramanium

Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. Photo: S. Subramanium

The Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi cannot stultify proposals or schemes forwarded by the Council of Ministers to him by simply sitting on them, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud orally observed on Thursday.

“He [LG] is bound to pass the difference of opinions [between the LG and the Delhi Council of Ministers] to the President for early resolution,” he said.

Justice Chandrachud’s observations came on the first day of a five-judge Constitution Bench hearing a batch of nine appeals filed by the Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party government against an August 4, 2016 judgment of the Delhi High Court.

The AAP government argued that the High Court declared the LG to have “complete control of all matters regarding National Capital Territory of Delhi, and nothing will happen without the concurrence of the LG.”

The Kejriwal government wants the Supreme Court to lay down the law on whether the LG can unilaterally administer the National Capital without being bound by the “aid and advice” of the elected government.

“The Delhi High Court actually said this LG has special powers greater than the President, greater than other Governors of States,” senior advocate Gopal Subramanium submitted for the Delhi government.

The 69th Amendment of the Constitution in 1992 gave the National Capital of Delhi special status with its own democratically elected government and legislative assembly.

Sub-section (4) of Article 239AA mandates that a Council of Ministers shall aid and advice the LG in his functions regarding laws made by the Legislative Assembly.

The focus of the current controversy is a proviso to Article 239AA (4), which mandates that in case of a difference of opinion between the LG and the Council of Ministers, the former has to refer the issue to the President. In the meanwhile, while that decision is pending before the President, the LG, if the matter is urgent, can use his discretion to take immediate action.

The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, said that the Delhi government’s ability to “aid and advice” the LG is limited to subjects other than public order, police and land in the National Capital. It said that the proviso to Article 239AA (4), on plain reading, seems to give primacy to the LG.

Justice Ashok Bhushan remarked that the LG is entitled to take a different view and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Delhi Cabinet.

Mr. Subramanium alleged that the LG has misused the discretion in this proviso to block governance to such an extent that decisions from appointment of teachers in municipal schools to opening of clinics have been pending for over a year.

The Chief Secretary and other officers, without applying their minds to the various welfare proposals and schemes, simply forward the files to the LG, where it remains indeterminately.

“LG thinks he is [supreme law] on six grounds. One, that Delhi is still a Union Territory. Two, Parliament makes the law for Delhi under Article 246 (4) of the Constitution. Three, Article 239AA has brought in no change to Delhi’s status as a Union Territory simplicitor. Four, the proviso gives him the power of defiance. Five, he has to concur to every decision made by the Delhi government. Six, he can take independent decisions... Now, did the 69th Constitutional Amendment contemplate two parallel governments like this?” Mr. Subramanium asked.

He submitted that the proviso envisaged a “great confidence, trust” to evolve between the Chief Minister and the LG. “But how can there be confidence when the LG holds meetings with government officers wihout the Chief Minister?” Mr. Subramanium said.

“So, in daily governance and implementation of laws, LG says he is your boss,” Justice A.K. Sikri remarked from the Bench. “It would have been alright if he had said just that. He is actually saying that we do not count,” Mr. Subramanium observed.

In his day-long submissions before the Bench, Mr. Subramanium said situation of governance in Delhi has come to such a turn that “department Ministers are unable to get an opinion from their secretaries and civil servants on issues of governance.”

He said, “They have to literally fall at their feet.”

When Justice Bhushan cautioned him to confine his arguments to interpreting Article 239AA and not refer to any actual events, Mr. Subramanium quoted the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to reply that “sometimes courts have to refer to seminal events from history while interpreting the Constitution.”

Mr. Subramanium argued that the “extraordinary discretion” of the LG is confined to special circumstances and not in everything.

At this point, Chief Justice Misra agreed that the “difference of opinion” between the LG and the Delhi government should be “authentic.”

“Yes. It should not be just to stultify governance. The executive functions of the Delhi government is not just to enforce existing laws but also to make schemes for the poor, children, etc. But here, in the National Capital, we see the LG interfere in the normal day-to-day governance... This is not done anywhere in the country,” Mr. Subramanium responded to the Chief Justice’s remark.

The senior advocate submitted that the purpose of Article 239AA was to “provide some kind of voice to the people, some kind of governance to the people.” The amendment was not just a structural addition to the Indian Constitution, but was based on the quality and fundamental principles of egalitarianism.

Mr. Subramanium said the Delhi High Court was in error when it bought the Centre's argument that Delhi was like any other Union Territory governed by parliamentary laws under Article 246 (4) and there was no need to give the Delhi government any elbow room.

Unlike other union territories like Puducherry, Delhi was recognised as “special” through a constitutional amendment. Article 239AA provided the Delhi Legislative Assembly the same powers as any other State legislature. The 69th Constitutional Amendment was passed to create “legislative accountability” through a democratically elected government, Mr. Subramanium argued. The Legislative Assembly could make laws for any part of Delhi, except in subjects of public order, police and land.

Mr. Subramanium evoked Article 73 of the Constitution to note that Article 246 (4) was subject to the provisions of Article 239AA.

“We are not contesting parliamentary supremacy. We acknowledge it. But still there must be an elbow room for the Legislative Aseembly of an elected government to function... Everything we do does not require the concurrence of the LG,” he submitted.

Read Original ArticleRead More
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Jun 21, 2022 7:21:20 pm | https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-centre-turf-spat-arguments-and-counter-arguments/article56832253.ece