SC Verdict on Delhi Government Vs Lieutenant Governor

Delhi statehood
Dark mode:OFF
Reading time: 3 minutes

The Supreme Court recently held that the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) is bound by the aid and advice of the Delhi government. This judgement was given with respect to the appeals filed by the Delhi government against a 2016 Delhi High Court verdict that declared the L-G has complete control over all matters concerned with the government of Delhi.

What is the background of the issue?

  • Although a Union Territory, Delhi is not administered by the President through the LG under Article 239 but under Article 239 AA which was incorporated in 1992.
  • Article 239 AA gave Delhi a special constitutional status as follows
    • It has the elected assembly with powers to enact laws
    • A council of ministers responsible to the assembly.
    • It could legislate on matters under the state and concurrent lists with exceptions such as public order, police, and land which are reserved for LG.
  • This special set up worked well for a long time mainly due to the same party held office at the Centre as well as Delhi for much of the years.
  • However, things changed when different governments ruled Delhi and the Centre. It was further complicated when the Delhi HC verdict declared that the only decision-making authority in Delhi would be LG.
  • This prompted the Delhi government to file appeals against the HC verdict in SC and demands statehood.

What are the key highlights of the verdict?

The verdict on the relationship between Delhi and LG

  • In case of conflict or dispute between LG and the state, the LG should immediately refer the matter with the President.
  • L-G has not been entrusted with any independent decision-making powers and therefore should work harmoniously with the aid and advice of the Ministers or implement the decisions taken by the President.
  • However, L-G is restricted to take the only important dispute to the President. It could encompass issues such as finance and policy and should have an impact on the status of the national capital or the vital interests of the Centre.

The verdict on the statehood issue

  • SC followed the 1987 Balakrishnan Committee report to conclude that Delhi is not a state. Key recommendations of the report as follows.
    • Delhi as a national capital belongs to the nation as a whole.
    • Delhi could not have a situation where two governments run different political parties as it may affect the national interest.
    • Control of Union over Delhi was vital in the national interest.

Also Read: SC Verdict on Section 377 – The Restoration of Right to Free Speech & Expression

How is the verdict significant?

  • The verdict would end the long-standing tussle among LG and Delhi government. This would curb the existing issues and obstacles in the efficient functioning of the government and would improve the governance of Delhi.
  • It provides a clarification that an elected government cannot be undermined by an unelected administrator.
  • It restores the primary role played by the representative government in Delhi.
  • It upholds the provisions of Indian constitution with respect to executive and administrative powers of ministers of Delhi.
  • It establishes constitutional morality and trust among high functionaries in the government.
  • It will set a precedent to hamper any authoritarian and reckless use of power by constitutionally appointed authorities in the future.

Hit in UPSC Mains 2018:

Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine. (15 marks)

Related Articles

Lt-Governor (L-G) Vs Puducherry Government – What is the tussle?

The Madras High Court has recently ruled that the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) of Puducherry should not interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Union Territory when an elected government is in place.

The court argued that the continued interference from the L-G would amount to running a “Parallel government”.

Notably, the Supreme Court has also given a similar verdict on Delhi Government Vs Lieutenant Governor (L-G) in July 2018.

This article explains the following in an analytical manner:

  1. What is the background of the issue?
  2. What is the High Court verdict?
  3. What was the Supreme Court’s verdict in this regard?
  4. Significance of the verdicts.
  5. [Table] Comparison between L-G of Delhi and L-G of Puducherry.

Reservation in Promotion for SC/STs – Supreme Court Verdict & its Significance

Updates *

On February 7th, 2020, with regards to Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of Uttarakhand case, the Supreme Court ruled that states are not legally bound to provide reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government jobs. The apex court had stated that individuals do not have the fundamental rights to claim reservations in the promotions. This is based on the provisions of the Indian constitution. This recent judgement is not new. The top court had pointed out the fact that reservations are not fundamental rights in several judgements in the past.

Ladakh’s Union Territory (UT) demand – All You Need to Know

First Published – August 2018


Ladakh was once an independent Himalayan kingdom with political history dates back to 930 A.D. Ladakh constitutes about 70% of the total J&K territory with a distinct political and cultural identity of its own. Since 1949, Ladakh people have been demanding Union Territory status for their region and their demand is based on geographical, cultural, linguistic and political lines.  Ladakhis do not want to involve with the anti-India movement in the Kashmir valley. Hence, people of Ladakh demand a union territory status with an elected legislature to run their own affairs and safeguard their interests.

[Premium] Begging in India – Legal Status in light of court verdicts

In August 2018, Delhi High Court decriminalized beggary by striking down some sections of the Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act, 1959, as extended to Delhi. Begging is a crime in twenty states and two union territories of India. It is treated as a cognizable and non-bailable offense. Presently, there is not a single uniform law on begging & destitution and several states have adopted the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959.

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yogesh Kumar
Yogesh Kumar
1 year ago

Please update it with February 2019 , the SC judgement

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x