
The Delhi government remains entrenched in a series of legal confrontations with the Lieutenant Governor before the Supreme Court, principally contesting the constitutionality of the Centre’s legislative framework, which accords preeminence to the LG over the elected government in the administration of services within the National Capital.
The breadth of these petitions spans fundamental constitutional challenges regarding the demarcation of executive authority and objections to the Centre’s unilateral conferral of discretionary powers upon the LG, particularly in appointing legal representatives for the government.
At the heart of the Delhi government’s litigation strategy is its challenge to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act, 2023, which fundamentally restructures administrative oversight in the region. Given the imminent transition in governance with the BJP assuming control, the judicial resolution of these disputes is poised to have significant ramifications for the power dynamics in the capital.
The legal skirmishes commenced in April 2023, when the Delhi government initiated proceedings contesting the LG’s unilateral appointment of the chairperson of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC). This was followed by a challenge to the LG’s conditional approval of a government initiative to send public school teachers to Finland for professional training. Another petition sought judicial intervention to compel the LG to authorize the disbursement of funds essential for the revival of the Delhi government’s Farishte scheme.
A further controversy involves contempt proceedings against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) concerning the unlawful deforestation of the Delhi Ridge, wherein the LG, V. K. Saxena, has been implicated for alleged dereliction of duty.
Legislatively, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023—popularly known as the Delhi Services Bill—was enacted, substantially augmenting the LG’s control over service-related matters. The legislation received presidential assent from Droupadi Murmu, thereby cementing its legal standing.
Prior to this, the Supreme Court had referred the Delhi government’s challenge to the Centre’s May 19 ordinance—which rescinded the elected administration’s authority over services—to a five-judge constitutional bench.
This ordinance, subsequently enacted into law, established a new bureaucratic apparatus to oversee the transfer and posting of Group-A officers in Delhi.
The Aam Aadmi Party government decried this legislative intervention as a flagrant subversion of a prior Supreme Court ruling that had unequivocally reaffirmed the elected administration’s prerogative over services. The issue remains sub judice before the apex court.
In an earlier ruling, a five-judge constitutional bench had, in a unanimous verdict, endeavored to resolve the protracted power struggle between the Centre and the Delhi government, a conflict originally precipitated by a 2015 Home Ministry notification asserting central authority over administrative services.
The court acknowledged the sui generis (unique) constitutional status of the National Capital Territory and affirmed that an elected government must wield substantive control over its bureaucratic machinery to uphold the doctrine of collective responsibility.
Under the newly instituted legal framework, the National Capital Civil Service Authority was constituted to regulate the transfer, postings, and disciplinary proceedings of Group-A officers within the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Civil Services (DANICS) cadre.
The authority comprises the Chief Minister and two senior bureaucrats, with decisions taken by majority vote. In the event of a deadlock, the matter is escalated to the LG, whose decision is final and binding.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the LG exercised exclusive jurisdiction over all aspects of officer transfers and postings within the Delhi government.
The ongoing legal contestation between the Centre and the elected government underscores the enduring complexities surrounding governance and bureaucratic oversight in the National Capital Territory, with the Supreme Court’s eventual adjudication expected to establish crucial jurisprudential clarity on the subject.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International