The Supreme Court reviewed a case where the Delhi government challenged the Lieutenant-Governor's appointment of Aldermen. During the proceedings, the court expressed concerns that giving the Lieutenant-Governor the power to nominate Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) members could potentially disrupt the elected civic body's stability.
According to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957, the administrator (the LG) has the authority to nominate ten individuals, who must be over the age of 25, to the corporation. These individuals are required to possess special knowledge or experience in municipal administration. Their role is to support the House in making decisions of public significance.
The Supreme Court made several observations regarding the powers of the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) and the governance model in the national capital. The Additional Solicitor General representing the L-G argued that the L-G has a role as an Administrator and active involvement in the nomination of aldermen.?
However, the SC noted that granting such powers to the L-G could potentially undermine the democratically elected Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), as the L-G would have voting power.
The SC clarified that the L-G does not possess extensive executive powers in the national capital, which operates under an "Asymmetric Federal Model" of governance. This model entails varying degrees of autonomy and powers for different regions or components within a federation.
The court specified that the L-G can exercise executive power in three specific areas: public order, police, and land in Delhi, as outlined in Article 239AA(3)(a).
Furthermore, the SC stated that if the L-G disagrees with the Council of Ministers of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, they should adhere to the procedure outlined in the Transaction of Business (ToB) Rules 1961.?
These rules, derived from Article 77(3) of the Constitution, establish the framework for allocating work and responsibilities among government departments and ministries. They outline procedures for formulating, approving, and implementing government policies, decisions, and actions.
Alderman is a term that originated from the combination of "old" and "man," indicating an older or experienced person. Initially, it referred to elders of a clan or tribe but later evolved to denote the king's viceroys, regardless of age.?
Eventually, it took on a more specific meaning as the "chief magistrate of a county" with both civil and military responsibilities. By the 12th century CE, it began to be associated with municipal governments and used to describe officers of municipal bodies. This usage of the term continues to the present day.
According to The Hindu report, there are concerns surrounding the appointment of aldermen as there is doubt regarding the suitability of the nominated individuals. Upon review, it was discovered that two out of the ten nominees were deemed unfit for the position based on technical qualifications.?
This raises questions about the transparency and thoroughness of the nomination process, as appointing individuals who are not qualified or suitable for the role undermines the integrity of the appointments.?
Further, there is a perception that the appointment of aldermen by the LG is an attempt to maintain control and influence within the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) despite facing electoral defeat.?
This raises concerns about the democratic principles of representation and fairness in power dynamics within the MCD, as it seems that the appointments may be driven more by political motivations rather than merit or public interest.
The tussle between the Delhi Government and the Centre revolves around a jurisdictional conflict regarding the administrative powers of the Lieutenant Governor and the elected government of Delhi. This conflict arises due to the co-existence of Article 239 and 239AA in the Constitution.
The Centre argues that as Delhi is a Union Territory, the LG has independent authority granted by Article 239, allowing them to act independently of the Council of Ministers. They believe that being the national capital, the Centre should have control over administrative services and appointments.
On the other hand, the Delhi government contends that Article 239AA grants Delhi special status, providing it with its own legislatively elected government. They argue that elected representatives should have the power to decide on transfers, postings, and other administrative matters, emphasizing the principles of federalism.
Various judicial benches have addressed the legal issues surrounding this tussle. In February 2019, a two-judge Bench decided on the allocation of powers but left the question of administrative service control for a larger Bench to decide.?
In May 2022, a three-judge Bench referred the case to a larger Bench based on the Central government's plea. The three-judge Bench concluded that the issue of control over administrative services required further examination.
Another issue at hand is the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2021, passed by Parliament. This act states that the term "government" mentioned in any law made by the Delhi Legislative Assembly will refer to the Lieutenant Governor (LG), further complicating the power dynamics between the Delhi government and the Centre.