Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in his leading opinion for the Bench reproduces excerpts from the report, which said “Delhi as the national capital belongs to the nation as a whole.”
The Supreme Court on July 4 followed the 1987 Balakrishnan Committee report to conclude that Delhi is not a State.
The report had envisaged that Delhi cannot have a situation where the national capital has “two Governments run by different political parties. Such conflicts may, at times, prejudice the national interest.”
Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in his leading opinion for the Bench reproduces excerpts from the report, which said “Delhi as the national capital belongs to the nation as a whole.”
The report foresaw that if Delhi becomes a full-fledged State, there will be a constitutional division of sovereign, legislative and executive powers between the Union and the State of Delhi. The Parliament would have limited legislative access and that too only in special and emergency situations. The Union would be unable to discharge its “special responsibilities in relation to the national capital as well as to the nation itself”.
Read the full judgment here
The report said the control of the Union over Delhi was vital in the national interest.
The report dealt extensively with the modifications in the aid and advice given by the Council of Ministers to the LG as the Administrator of Delhi.
It pointed out that the ‘aid and advice’ concept cannot apply to the exercise by the Administrator of any judicial or quasi judicial functions. The LG is bound to the aid and advice of the Delhi Cabinet only in matters in respect of which the Legislative Assembly has the powers to make laws
The report said the LG’s role is not that of merely a Constitutional figurehead, though the ultimate responsibility for good administration of Delhi is vested in the President acting through the Administrator. However, the Administrator has to take a somewhat more active part in the administration than the Governor of a State.
Hence, differences of opinion would arise between the LG and the elected government. The report had recommended that the “best way” of doing this is to let the LG refer such differences of opinion with the elected government to the President for a final decision.
The report had envisaged that Delhi cannot have a situation where the national capital has “two Governments run by different political parties. Such conflicts may, at times, prejudice the national interest.”
Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in his leading opinion for the Bench reproduces excerpts from the report, which said “Delhi as the national capital belongs to the nation as a whole.”
The report foresaw that if Delhi becomes a full-fledged State, there will be a constitutional division of sovereign, legislative and executive powers between the Union and the State of Delhi. The Parliament would have limited legislative access and that too only in special and emergency situations. The Union would be unable to discharge its “special responsibilities in relation to the national capital as well as to the nation itself”.
Read the full judgment here
The report said the control of the Union over Delhi was vital in the national interest.
The report dealt extensively with the modifications in the aid and advice given by the Council of Ministers to the LG as the Administrator of Delhi.
It pointed out that the ‘aid and advice’ concept cannot apply to the exercise by the Administrator of any judicial or quasi judicial functions. The LG is bound to the aid and advice of the Delhi Cabinet only in matters in respect of which the Legislative Assembly has the powers to make laws
The report said the LG’s role is not that of merely a Constitutional figurehead, though the ultimate responsibility for good administration of Delhi is vested in the President acting through the Administrator. However, the Administrator has to take a somewhat more active part in the administration than the Governor of a State.
Hence, differences of opinion would arise between the LG and the elected government. The report had recommended that the “best way” of doing this is to let the LG refer such differences of opinion with the elected government to the President for a final decision.