The Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India issue involved the interpretation of Article 239A of the Constitution, which provides unique provisions with regard to the National Capital Territory (NCT). In this case, there was discussion over the distinctive status of the NCT, the authority of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, the LG, and how those powers interacted. Following the Constitution Bench’s decision, appeals pertaining to specific elements, including services, were brought before a regular bench for decision-making.
whether the notice of the Government of India dated May 21, 2015, excluding “services” related to Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule from the legislative and executive realm of the NCT of Delhi is illegal and unconstitutional.
Analysis of Court Order
The Delhi government will be in charge of all services in the national capital, including the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), except for those related to land, the police, and law and order, according to the Supreme Court Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha.
The constitution panel also argued that Entry 41 would extend NCT Delhi’s legislative authority to the IAS and that it would therefore have jurisdiction over them even though they were not hired by NCT Delhi. It would not, however, apply to the police, law enforcement, and land-related agencies. Beyond land, police, and law and order, the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is bound by NCT Delhi’s decision.
The Court continued to maintain that sub-clause (b) of Article 239A makes it clear that Parliament has the authority to enact laws on any issues included in any of the three lists that are relevant to the NCT. It said that if legislation passed by a legislative assembly and a law passed by the central government conflict, the former will be declared invalid. According to the court’s ruling in that case, the LG must cooperate with the NCT government because their positions on the definition of “services” as defined in Schedule VII, List II, Entry 41 of the Indian Constitution are different from those of the Council of Ministers.
According to the ruling, even though a state or union territory has the authority to pass laws on topics included in the Concurrent List, those laws will still be subject to current Central law. The Bench argued that it is also necessary to prevent the central government from taking over state control.