Lieutenant Governor bound by ‘aid and advice’ of elected Delhi govt., rules Supreme Court

The LG has no independent authority to take decisions except in matters under Article 239 or matters outside the purview of the government, observes Justice Chandrachud.

Updated - December 04, 2021 11:55 pm IST

Published - July 04, 2018 01:20 pm IST - NEW DELHI

 Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Anil Baijal (right) and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Anil Baijal (right) and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously held that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi is bound by the “aid and advice” of the popularly-elected Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government and both have to work harmoniously with each other. It noted that there is no room for anarchy or absolutism in a democracy.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, who wrote the opinion for himself, and Justices A.K. Sikri and A.M. Khanwilkar held that except for issues of public order, police and land, the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the “aid and advice of the Kejriwal government, which has the public mandate.”

“Real authority to take decisions lie in the elected government. This is the meaning of ‘aid and advice.’ Titular head (LG) has to act in accordance to aid and advice,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed in his separate opinion. He concluded that there is no independent authority with the LG to take decisions except in matters under Article 239 or those outside the purview of the National Capital Territory (NCT)  government.


Every “trivial difference of opinion” between the LG and the NCT government cannot be referred to the President for a decision. The issues referred should be of substantive or national importance. In this regard, the CJI interpreted the phrase “any matter” in the proviso to Article 239AA(4) as not “every matter.”

Elected representatives would be reduced to a cipher if ‘any matter’ in Article 239AA (4) was interpreted as every matter of governance, Justice Chandrachud agreed.

“This Constitutional Court would be doing a disservice if an elected governmentt is reduced to a mere form without substance,” he wrote.

The CJI wrote that a reference to the President was only an exception and not the general rule. “In this context, even in case of differences of opinion, the LG and the NCT government should act with constitutional morality and trust for each other. The LG cannot act without applying his mind and refer everything to the President.”

Read the full judgment here.

LG’s concurrence not needed

The NCT government need only to inform the LG of its “well-deliberated” decisions. The government need not obtain his “concurrence” in every issue of day-to-day governance.

Referring to the prolonged spat between the LG and the Kejriwal government on various issues, from a freeze on appointment of bureaucrats to mohalla clinic staff to school teachers , the CJI said the spirit of collective responsibility in the Constitution should not be “lost in drama.” “Constitutional discord should be avoided. There is a need for real discipline and wisdom.”

A freeze on government decisions by the LG negates the very concept of “collective responsibility.” The governance of the National Capital demands a “meaningful orchestration of democracy” and a “collaborative federal archeitecture.”

Collective responsibility means government speaking in one voice to the people whose aspirations the government reflects, Justice Chandrachud observed.

Not a ‘State’


The CJI, however, adhered to the nine-judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the NDMC versus State of Punjab to conclude that Delhi is not a ‘State.’ The judgment also held that the LG is not a Governor but only an “administrator in a limited sense.”

“Real and substantive power lies with the elected representatives in a democracy. They owe responsibility to the legislature,” Justice Chandrachud observed, agreeing with the CJI that a “mixed balance” has to be struck considering the special status of the Delhi and “fundamental concerns” as Delhi is the National Capital.

Justice Chandrachud said liberty and democracy were fragile concepts that needed to be protected at all costs against absolutism.

The judgment came on appeals filed by the NCT government against an August 4, 2016 judgment of the Delhi High Court that declared that the LG had “complete control of all matters regarding National Capital Territory of Delhi, and nothing will happen without the concurrence of the LG.”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.