Summary
The appeals concerning the distribution of executive powers in Delhi were decided in light of the 2018 Constitution Bench judgment. The judges agreed on the validity of limiting the Anti-Corruption Branch to Delhi government employees, the competent government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, electricity policy directions, stamp-duty circle rates and appointment of Special Public Prosecutors. They differed on the exercise of executive control over services; their separate approaches must be distinguished from the conclusions on which they concurred.
Issues
- Who could exercise the disputed powers concerning services, anti-corruption investigations, commissions of inquiry, electricity policy, circle rates and Special Public Prosecutors in the National Capital Territory of Delhi?
Provisions considered
- Articles 239 and 239AA, Constitution of IndiaDelhi remains a Union Territory with a special representative government; the division of executive powers and the limited procedure for referring differences to the President governed the appeals. (¶¶ 55–61, 161–163)
- Seventh Schedule, List II, Entries 2, 41 and 63, Constitution of IndiaPolice remained excluded; services generated separate opinions; fixation of circle rates for stamp duty was referable to Entry 63 rather than land under Entry 18. (¶¶ 107–115, 156–163, Ashok Bhushan J., 10–42)
- Section 2(a), Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952GNCTD was not the appropriate government for the impugned statutory commission; the General Clauses Act definitions applied. (¶¶ 117, 129–136)
- Sections 3(8) and 3(60), General Clauses Act, 1897The statutory meanings of Central Government and State Government supported the conclusion under the Commissions of Inquiry Act; other enactments required attention to their own language and context. (¶¶ 129–135, 143–146, 171–172)
- Sections 2(5) and 108, Electricity Act, 2003Read with the Delhi legislation, these provisions permitted Delhi government policy directions to DERC. (¶¶ 137, 143–146)
- Sections 2(d) and 12, Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000The Lieutenant Governor as Government acted on ministerial aid and advice in exercising the statutory policy-direction power. (¶ 138–146)
- Section 27(3), Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in DelhiNotifying minimum land values for charging stamp duty lay within Delhi governmental competence, subject to communicating the decision to the Lieutenant Governor. (¶¶ 154, 158–163)
- Section 24(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Lieutenant Governor was to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. (¶ 164–172)
Held
- The notifications of 23 July 2014 and 21 May 2015 limiting ACB investigations to GNCTD employees and excluding Central Government personnel were upheld. Supervision, control and delineation of police jurisdiction fall within the excluded police entry; investigation of Central Government employees by CBI avoided overlapping jurisdiction. (¶¶ 106–115, Ashok Bhushan J., 2–3)
- For the impugned commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, GNCTD did not qualify as the appropriate government. The Court did not decide whether a commission could independently be constituted under executive powers traceable to Entry 45 of List III. (¶¶ 129–136, Ashok Bhushan J., 2–3)
- GNCTD had jurisdiction to issue the electricity policy notification of 12 June 2015. The Lieutenant Governor was required to act on ministerial aid and advice under the Delhi legislation; the merits of that notification were not adjudicated. (¶¶ 143–146, Ashok Bhushan J., 2–3)
- Agricultural circle rates for stamp duty fell under Entry 63, not the excluded land entry. Although the Council of Ministers could take that decision, it had to communicate it to the Lieutenant Governor before implementation. His concurrence was not generally required; differences warranting presidential reference must be exceptional and supported by cogent reasons. The conclusion against the uncommunicated notification was sustained. (¶¶ 158–163, Ashok Bhushan J., 2–3)
- Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors concerned matters within Delhi legislative competence under the Concurrent List. The Lieutenant Governor had to exercise the appointment power on ministerial aid and advice. (¶¶ 169–172, Ashok Bhushan J., 2–3)
- On services, Sikri J. proposed differentiated handling of senior posts, other officers and disciplinary powers, with the Lieutenant Governor having the final say in the event of specified differences. Ashok Bhushan J. held that Entry 41 was unavailable to the Delhi Assembly and GNCTD could exercise only statutory or delegated executive powers over services. These were separate opinions, not a common operative allocation of services control. (¶¶ 86–92, Ashok Bhushan J., 2, Ashok Bhushan J., 36–43)
Result
Appeals disposed of through the stated issue-wise conclusions and separate opinions on services. The contempt petition was disposed of/closed; parties were to bear their own costs under Ashok Bhushan J.’s concluding order.