(This article is written by Anjali Kumari, BA.LLB, 4th Year, Marwadi University during her internship at LeDroit India)
Keywords
Federalism, Centre-State Relations, Delhi Government, Lieutenant Governor, Supreme Court Verdict, Constitutional Crisis
Abstract
The Indian Constitution lays the foundation for a federal structure where the powers of governance are shared between the Centre and the States. However, this delicate balance is increasingly being tested, especially in the context of Delhi, the National Capital Territory. The Delhi vs Centre power tussle, which has continued for almost a decade, has emerged as one of the most important constitutional conflicts in recent Indian politics. With key themes such as federalism, Centre-State relations, administrative autonomy, and constitutional interpretation at the core of this debate, the recent Supreme Court verdict of 2023 and the Centre’s legislative reaction have reignited questions about the sanctity of democratic decentralization. This article seeks to examine the evolving jurisprudence, analyze the 2023 Supreme Court verdict in depth, critically evaluate the Centre’s ordinance and its legislative override, and reflect upon the larger implications of this tussle for Indian federalism. Using case laws, real-life illustrations, and doctrinal reasoning, the article argues that Indian federalism is at a crossroads, where cooperative federalism is being replaced by central dominance.
Introduction
The concept of federalism in India is unique and dynamic. Unlike classical federal systems such as the United States, where states have full autonomy within their domain, India follows a quasi-federal structure where the Centre enjoys a dominant position. Even though the Constitution envisages a distribution of powers between the Union and the States, there are provisions that allow the Centre to assert authority in various forms. One such case where the Centre’s dominance has consistently created friction is the governance of Delhi. The National Capital Territory of Delhi has a democratically elected government but is also a Union Territory. This dual nature has led to repeated institutional clashes between the Delhi Government and the Union Government, particularly over the control of administrative services. While the people of Delhi elect a Chief Minister and a cabinet, the Lieutenant Governor (LG), a representative of the President of India, also holds executive authority. This overlapping of power has given rise to a complex and controversial constitutional battle that reflects a much larger issue – the shrinking space for cooperative federalism in India. This article explores this crisis in detail, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s verdict in 2023 and the Centre’s legislative response that followed.
Federal Structure and Delhi’s Special Status
Delhi’s governance structure is shaped by Article 239AA of the Constitution of India, inserted through the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1991. It granted Delhi a Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister, while retaining certain powers with the Union. The article provides that Delhi’s legislature may make laws on matters in the State List and Concurrent List, except for police, public order, and land. This arrangement created a hybrid model—part state, part Union Territory. The Lieutenant Governor is appointed by the President and acts as the administrator of Delhi. However, confusion arises from the provision that allows the LG to refer any matter to the President in case of a “difference of opinion” with the elected government. This vaguely defined phrase has been at the heart of most conflicts between the LG and the Delhi Cabinet.
After the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) won the 2015 Delhi elections with a massive mandate, tensions with the LG’s office became frequent. From appointment of officers to the implementation of policies, the LG’s interference was perceived by the Delhi Government as unconstitutional overreach. The Delhi Government argued that without control over bureaucrats, the Cabinet’s decisions remained on paper. The Centre maintained that since Delhi is a Union Territory, the ultimate control should lie with the Union Government.
The 2018 Supreme Court Verdict – First Landmark
The matter finally reached the judiciary in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501. In this case, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all matters that fall within the purview of the Delhi Legislative Assembly. The Court held that the LG is not the executive head and cannot act independently. The judgment emphasized the principles of cooperative federalism and representative democracy. However, the Court left the matter of “services” undecided—whether the Delhi Government has power over civil servants. This created a legal vacuum and allowed the Centre to maintain its control over bureaucratic appointments and transfers through executive notifications.
The 2023 Supreme Court Verdict – Clarifying the Services Issue
To resolve this long-standing ambiguity, the issue was again heard by a Constitution Bench in 2023. In Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 555, the Supreme Court categorically held that the Delhi Government has legislative and administrative control over “services” (i.e., appointments and transfers of officers), except for public order, police, and land. The Court held that officers posted in Delhi are accountable to the elected government, and without such accountability, the democratic mandate becomes meaningless. It stressed that civil servants must function under the control of elected representatives to ensure that policies are implemented effectively and efficiently. The verdict was celebrated as a major victory for federalism and democratic governance.
Centre’s Response – Ordinance and the 2023 Amendment Act
Barely a week after the verdict, the Union Government promulgated an ordinance titled the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023. The ordinance created a new body—the National Capital Civil Services Authority (NCCSA)—comprising the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, and Principal Home Secretary. This body would make recommendations to the LG regarding postings and transfers of officers. However, the ordinance gave the LG overriding power to reject or return recommendations, making him the final authority. This ordinance was later converted into legislation as the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023, popularly called the Delhi Services Act. With this, the Centre legally overruled the Supreme Court judgment, reigniting a constitutional crisis.
The Delhi Government challenged the ordinance and the Act in the Supreme Court, calling it an assault on the Constitution. Critics, legal scholars, and opposition leaders pointed out that the legislation violated the principles laid down in the 2018 and 2023 judgments and undermined the authority of the judiciary. The entire controversy now centers on whether the Union can neutralize constitutional court verdicts through ordinary legislation in a manner that disturbs the basic structure doctrine.
Illustrations and Real-Life Impact
To understand the practical impact of this power struggle, consider a situation where the Delhi Government wishes to launch a large-scale vaccination drive by appointing a new Health Secretary. Under the Delhi Services Act, the Chief Minister’s proposal can be vetoed by the LG. This delays policy execution and renders the elected government powerless in critical areas of governance. In another example, during the investigation of the 2020 Delhi riots, the Delhi Government recommended a panel of public prosecutors. The LG overruled the decision and appointed his own list. This not only affected the neutrality of legal proceedings but also signaled how executive overreach can have direct consequences on justice delivery.
Critical Analysis – Is Federalism Under Threat?
The recent developments in Delhi raise urgent concerns about the future of Indian federalism. While the Constitution provides special arrangements for Union Territories, it also emphasizes democratic governance through elected representatives. When the Centre overrides the verdict of a Constitution Bench by using its legislative majority, it undermines the authority of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers. Furthermore, this situation is not unique to Delhi. Similar trends can be seen in other opposition-ruled states, where Governors delay or deny assent to bills, interfere in university appointments, or block Cabinet decisions. All these actions point to a growing trend of centralized control, at the cost of state autonomy.
One cannot ignore the political dimension of the Delhi tussle. The AAP-led Delhi Government and the BJP-led Union Government represent different political ideologies. The power struggle is as much about political rivalry as it is about constitutional interpretation. Yet, the Constitution must rise above politics. The Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution becomes all the more critical in such times. If judicial pronouncements are ignored or undone through ordinances, it will erode public faith in constitutional remedies.
Conclusion
The Delhi vs Centre power tussle is a constitutional conflict that has grown into a serious challenge for Indian federalism. While the 2018 and 2023 Supreme Court verdicts attempted to strike a balance between central authority and democratic governance, the Centre’s legislative response has disturbed this equilibrium. The enactment of the Delhi Services Act has not only weakened the authority of the elected government but has also set a dangerous precedent for undermining judicial decisions through legislation. This situation reveals the shrinking space for cooperative federalism and the rise of executive dominance. The real victim here is not just the Delhi Government but the democratic rights of its people. In a country as diverse and complex as India, federalism is not a luxury but a necessity. The Constitution envisions a partnership between the Centre and the States, not a hierarchy. If such trends continue, the balance of power may tilt irreversibly in favor of the Union, making states mere administrative units. The judiciary must act decisively to prevent this erosion. Respecting the constitutional division of powers, upholding judicial supremacy, and protecting democratic governance are essential if India is to remain a truly federal republic.
References:
- Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501
- Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 555
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 SCC (3) 1
- Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023 – PRS Legislative
- Article 239AA – Constitution of India
