Ads Top

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Union of India [Prologue]

Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 239, 239A & 239AA - Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 - Transaction of Business of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Rules, 1993 - Interpretation of - Ideals / Principles of Representative Governance - Constitutional morality - Constitutional objectivity - Constitutional Governance and the Conception of Legitimate Constitutional Trust - Collective Responsibility - Federal Functionalism and Democracy - Collaborative Federalism - Pragmatic Federalism - Concept of Federal Balance - Interpretation of the Constitution - Purposive interpretation - Constitutional Culture and Pragmatism - Interpretation of Article of the Constitution - Status of NCT of Delhi - Executive power of the Council of Ministers of Delhi - Essence of Article 239AA of the Constitution - Constitutional Renaissance.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Dipak Misra, CJI) (A.K. Sikri, J.) (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Ashok Bhushan, J.)

July 04, 2018
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2357 OF 2017
Government of NCT of Delhi … Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Another … Respondents
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 175 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 539 OF 1986 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2358 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2359 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2360 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2361 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2362 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2363 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2364 OF 2017 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2017
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself, A.K. Sikri and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.) 
CONTENTS
A. Prologue:
The present reference to the Constitution Bench has its own complexity as the centripodal issue in its invitation of the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution invokes a host of concepts, namely, constitutional objectivity navigating through the core structure with the sense and sensibility of having a real test of constitutional structure; the culture of purposive interpretation because the Court is concerned with the sustenance of glory of constitutional democracy in a Democratic Republic as envisioned in the Constitution; and understanding the idea of citizenry participation viewed with the lens of progressive perception inherent in the words of a great living document emphasizing on the democratic theme to achieve the requisite practical goal in the world of reality. We may call it as pragmatic interpretation of a constitutional provision, especially the one that has the effect potentiality to metamorphose a workable provision into an unnecessary and unwarranted piece of ambiguity. In such a situation, the necessity is to scan the anatomy of the provision and lift it to the pedestal of constitutional ethos with the aid of judicial creativity that breathes essentiality of life into the same. It is the hermeneutics of law that works. It is the requisite constitutional stimulus to sustain the fundamental conception of participative democracy so that the real pulse is felt and further the constitutional promise to the citizens is fulfilled. It gets rid of the unpleasant twitches and convulsions. To put it differently, the assurance by the insertion of Article 239AA by the Constitution (Sixtyninth Amendment) Act, 1991 by exercise of the constituent power is not to be renounced with any kind of rigid understanding of the provision. It is because the exercise of constituent power is meant to confer democratic, societal and political powers on the citizens who reside within the National Capital Territory of Delhi that has been granted a special status.
2. The principal question is whether the inhabitants or voters of NCT of Delhi remain where they were prior to the special status conferred on the Union Territory or the amended constitutional provision that has transformed Delhi instills “Prana” into the cells. Let it be made clear that any ingenious effort to scuttle the hope and aspiration that has ignited the idea of “march ahead” among the inhabitants by any kind of linguistic gymnastics will not commend acceptation. The appellant claims that the status of the voters of NCT Delhi after the SixtyNinth Amendment has moved from notional to real but the claim has been negatived by the Delhi High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant criticize the judgment and order of the High Court by contending, apart from other aspects, that the language employed in the entire Chapter containing Article 239AA, unless appositely interpreted, shall denude the appellant, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, of its status.
3. The criticism is founded on the base that the Constitution of India, an organic and continuing document, has concretised their desire and enabled the people to have the right to participate as a collective in the decision making process that shall govern them and also pave the path of their welfare. The participation of the collective is the vital force for larger public interest and higher constitutional values spelt out in the Constitution and the silences therein and the same are to be protected. It is the assertion that the collective in a democracy speak through their elected representatives seeking mitigation of the grievances.
4. This Court, being the final arbiter of the Constitution, in such a situation, has to enter into the process of interpretation with the new tools such as constitutional pragmatism having due regard for sanctity of objectivity, realization of the purpose in the truest sense by constantly reminding one and all about the sacrosanctity of democratic structure as envisaged by our Constitution, elevation of the precepts of constitutional trust and morality, and the solemn idea of decentralization of power and, we must say, the ideas knock at the door to be invited. The compulsive invitation is the warrant to sustain the values of democracy in the prescribed framework of law. The aim is to see that in the ultimate eventuate, the rule of law prevails and the interpretative process allows the said idea its deserved space, for when the rule of law is conferred its due status in the sphere of democracy, it assumes significant credibility.


5. We would like to call such a method of understanding “confluence of the idea and spirit of the Constitution”, for it celebrates the grand idea behind the constitutional structure founded on the cherished values of democracy.
6. As we have used the words “spirit of the Constitution”, it becomes our obligation to clarify the concept pertaining to the same. The canon of constitutional interpretation that glorifies the democratic concepts lays emphasis not only on the etymology of democracy but also embraces within its sweep a connotative expansion so that the intrinsic and innate facets are included.
7. A sevenJudge Bench of the Court in Keshvan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay1951 SCR 228 observed:
“An argument founded on what is claimed to be the spirit of the Constitution is always attractive, for it has a powerful appeal to sentiment and emotion; but a court of law has to gather the spirit of the Constitution from the language of the Constitution. What one may believe or think to be the spirit of the Constitution cannot prevail if the language of the Constitution does not support that view. Article 372(2) gives power to the President to adapt and modify existing laws by way of repeal or amendment. There is nothing to prevent the President, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by that article, from repealing, say the whole or any part of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. If the President does so, then such repeal will at once attract Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. In such a situation all prosecutions under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, which were pending at the date of its repeal by the President would be saved and must be proceeded with notwithstanding the repeal of that Act unless an express provision was otherwise made in the repealing Act. It is therefore clear that the idea of the preservation of past inchoate rights or liabilities and pending proceedings to enforce the same is not foreign or abhorrent to the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention about the spirit of the Constitution as invoked by the learned counsel in aid of his plea that pending proceedings under a law which has become void cannot be proceeded with. Further, if it is against the spirit of the Constitution to continue the pending prosecutions under such a void law, surely it should be equally repugnant to that spirit that men who have already been convicted under such repressive law before the Constitution of India came into force should continue to rot in jail. It is, therefore, quite clear that the court should construe the language of Article 13(1) according to the established rules of interpretation and arrive at its true meaning uninfluenced by any assumed spirit of the Constitution.” 
[Emphasis is ours] 
The aforesaid decision has to be understood in the context of the phraseology ‘spirit of the Constitution’. As we understand, the Court has not negatived the concept as an alien one. It has laid emphasis on the support from the language used. It has not accepted the assumed spirit of the Constitution. Needless to say, there cannot be assumptions. Every proposition should have a base and the Constitution of India to be an organic and living one has to be perceived with progressive dynamism and not stuck with inflexibility. Flexibility has to be allowed room and that is what we find in later authorities.
8. In Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia and others v. Union of India and another(1971) 1 SCC 85 Hegde, J, in his concurring opinion, emphasized on the spirit of the Constitution. The learned Judge, while not accepting the exercise of power for collateral reasons, stated:
“Exercise of power for collateral reasons has been considered by this Court in several decisions as a fraud on that power — see Balaji v. State of MysoreBreach of any of the Constitutional provisions even if made to further a popular cause is bound to be a dangerous precedent. Disrespect to the Constitution is bound to be broadened from precedent to precedent and before long the entire Constitution may be treated with contempt and held up to ridicule. That is what happened to the Weimar Constitution. If the Constitution or any of its provisions have ceased to serve the needs of the people, ways must be found to change them but it is impermissible to bypass the Constitution or its provisions. Every contravention of the letter or the spirit of the Constitution is bound to have chain reaction. For that reason also the impugned orders must be held to be ultra vires Article 366(22).” 
[underlining is ours] 
9. In State of Kerala and another v. N.M. Thomas and others(1976) 2 SCC 310 Krishna Iyer, J., in his concurring opinion, opined thus:“ 106. Law, including constitutional law, can no longer “go it alone” but must be illumined in the interpretative process by sociology and allied fields of knowledge. Indeed, the term “constitutional law” symbolises an intersection of law and politics, wherein issues of political power are acted on by persons trained in the legal tradition, working in judicial institutions, following the procedures of law, thinking as lawyers think. So much so, a wider perspective is needed to resolve issues of constitutional law. Maybe, one cannot agree with the view of an eminent jurist and former Chief Justice of India: 
“The judiciary as a whole is not interested in the policy underlying a legislative measure.” 
Moreover, the Indian Constitution is a great social document, almost revolutionary in its aim of transforming a medieval, hierarchical society into a modern, egalitarian democracy. Its provisions can be comprehended only by a spacious, socialscience approach, not by pedantic, traditional legalism.
Here we are called upon to delimit the amplitude and decode the implications of Article 16(1) in the context of certain special concessions relating to employment, under the Kerala State (the appellant), given to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (for short, hereinafter referred to as harijans) whose social lot and economic indigence are an Indian reality recognized by many articles of the Constitution. An overview of the decided cases suggests the need to reinterpret the dynamic import of the “equality clauses” and, to stress again, beyond reasonable doubt that the paramount law, which is organic and regulates our nation’s growing life, must take in its sweep “ethics, economics, politics and sociology”. Equally pertinent to the issue mooted before us is the lament of Friedmann: 
“It would be tragic if the law were so petrified as to be unable to respond to the unending challenge of evolutionary or revolutionary changes in society.” 
The main assumptions which Friedmann makes are: 
“First, the law is, in Holmes’ phrase, not a ‘brooding omnipotence in the sky’, but a flexible instrument of social order, dependent on the political values of the society which it purports to regulate . . . .” 
107. Naturally surges the interrogation, what are the challenges of changing values to which the guarantee of equality must respond and how? To pose the problem with particular reference to our case, does the impugned rule violate the constitutional creed of equal opportunity in Article 16 by resort to a suspect classification or revivify it by making the less equal more equal by a legitimate differentiation? Chief Justice Marshall’s classic statement in McCulloch v. Maryland followed by Justice Brennan in Katzenbach v. Morgan remains a beacon light: 
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional”.” 
[Emphasis is added] 
10. In Supreme Court AdvocatesonRecord Association and another v. Union of India(1993) 4 SCC 441 this Court observed that a fortiori any construction of the constitutional provisions which conflicts with the constitutional purpose or negates the avowed object has to be eschewed, being opposed to the true meaning and spirit of the Constitution and, therefore, being an alien concept.
11. We have referred to the aforesaid precedents to state that the spirit of the Constitution has its own signification. In the context of the case at hand, the democratic nature of our Constitution and the paradigm of representative participation are undoubtedly comprised in the “spirit of the Constitution”. While interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, the safe and most sound approach is to read the words of the Constitution in the light of the avowed purpose and spirit of the Constitution so that it does not result in an illogical outcome which could have never been the intention of the Constituent Assembly or of the Parliament while exercising its constituent power. Therefore, a constitutional court, while adhering to the language employed in the provision, should not abandon the concept of the intention, spirit, the holistic approach and the constitutional legitimate expectation which combinedly project a magnificent facet of purposive interpretation. The Court should pose a question to itself whether a straight, literal and textual approach would annihilate the sense of the great living document which is required to be the laser beam to illumine. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the constitutional courts should protect the sense and spirit of the Constitution taking aid of purposive interpretation as that is the solemn duty of the constitutional courts as the final arbiters of the Constitution. It is a constitutional summon for performance of duty. The stress has to be on changing society, relevant political values, absence of any constitutional prohibition and legitimacy of the end to be achieved by appropriate means. We shall refer to the aspect of purposive interpretation regard being had to the context and other factors that gain primacy to be adverted to at a subsequent stage.
12. Having prefaced thus, we shall now proceed to state the controversy in brief since in this batch of appeals which has been referred to the Constitution Bench, we are required to advert to the issue that essentially pertains to the powers conferred on the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the executive power exercised by the elected Government of NCT of Delhi. The facts involved and the controversy raised in each individual appeal need not be dwelled upon, for we only intend to answer the constitutional issue.
13. The primordial adjudication, as is presently the requisite, commands our focus on the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution of India. The said interpretation, be it noted, is not to be done in an exclusive compartment but in the context in which it has been introduced and also keeping in view the conceptual structure of the other relevant articles of the Constitution. Before we delve into the various facets of Article 239AA and other provisions of the Constitution which have been pressed into service by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Solicitor General, we think it appropriate to narrate a brief history of Delhi.
14. On 12.12.1911, Delhi became the capital of India. Delhi Tehsil and Mehrauli Thana were separate from Punjab and annexed to Delhi headed by a Commissioner and it came to be known as the Chief Commissioner’s province. In 1912, the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 came into force with effect from 01.10.1912 making certain laws prevalent in Punjab to be applicable to Delhi. The Delhi Laws Act, 1915 empowered the Chief Commissioner, Delhi to determine application of laws by issuing appropriate notification in the Gazette of India. The Government of India Act, 1919 and the Government of India Act, 1935 retained Delhi as a centrally administered territory. On coming into force of the Constitution of India on 26.01.1950, Delhi became a Part C State. In the year 1951, the Government of Part C States Act, 1951 was enacted providing, inter alia, for a Legislative Assembly in Delhi. Section 21(1) of the 1951 Act empowered the Legislative Assembly to make laws on all matters of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution except (i) public order; (ii) police (including railway police); (iii) constitution and powers of municipal corporations and local authorities, etc.public utility authorities; (iv) lands & buildings vested in/in possession of the Union situated in Delhi or New Delhi; (v) offences against laws about subjects mentioned from (i) to (iv); and (vi) jurisdiction of courts with respect to the above matters and court fee thereon.


15. On 19.10.1956, the Constitution of India (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 was passed to implement the provisions of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 which did away with Part A, B, C and D States and only two categories, namely, States and Union Territories remained and Delhi became a Union Territory to be administered by an administrator appointed by the President. The Legislative Assembly of Delhi and the Council stood abolished. In the year 1953, the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 was enacted to provide for Legislative Assemblies and Council of Ministers for various Union Territories but the provisions of the said Act were not made applicable to Delhi. The Delhi Administration Act, 1966 was enacted to provide for limited representative Government for Delhi through a Metropolitan Council comprising of 56 elected members and five nominated members. In the same year, on 20.08.1966, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued S.O. No. 2524 that provided, inter alia, that the Lieutenant Governor/Administrator/Chief Commissioner shall be subject to the control of the President of India and exercise such powers and discharge the functions of a State Government under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 within the Union Territories. In the year 1987, the Balakrishnan Committee was set up to submit its recommendations with regard to the status to be conferred on Delhi and the said Committee recommended that Delhi should continue to be a Union Territory but there must be a Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers responsible to the said Assembly with appropriate powers; and to ensure stability, appropriate constitutional measures should be taken to confer the National Capital a special status. The relevant portion of the Balakrishnan Committee report reads as follows:
“6.5.5 In paragraphs 6.5.2 and 6.5.3 we have briefly summarised the arguments for and against making Delhi a constituent State of the Union. After the most careful consideration of all the arguments and on an objective appraisal, we are fully convinced that most of the arguments against making Delhi a State of the Union are very substantial, sound and valid and deserve acceptance. This was also the view expressed before us by some of the eminent and knowledgeable persons whom we interviewed. As these arguments are selfevident we find it unnecessary to go into them in detail except those relating to constitutional and financial aspects covered by them.
6.5.6 The important argument from the Constitutional angle is based on the federal type of our Constitution under which there is a constitutional division of powers and functions between the Union and the State. If Delhi becomes a fullfledged State, there will be a constitutional division of sovereign, legislative and executive powers between the Union and the State of Delhi. One of the consequences will be that in respect of matters in the State List, Parliament will have no power on jurisdiction to make any law except in the special and emergency situations provided for under the Constitution and to that extent the Union Executive cannot exercise executive powers or functions. The constitutional prohibition on the exercise of powers and functions will make it virtually impossible for the Union to discharge its special responsibilities in relation to the national capital as well as to the nation itself. We have already indicated in an earlier chapter the special features of the national capital and the need for keeping it under the control of the Union Government. Such control is vital in the national interest irrespective of whether the subject matter is in the State field or Union field. If the administration of the natural capital is divided into rigid compartments of State of field and Union field, conflicts are likely to arise in several vital matters, particularly if the two Governments are run by different political parties. Such conflicts may, at times, prejudice the national interest…… 
x x x 
6.5.9 We are also impressed with the argument that Delhi as the national capital belongs to the nation as a whole and any constituent State of the Union of which Delhi will become a part would sooner or later acquire a predominant position in relation to other States. Sufficient constitutional authority for Union intervention in daytoday matters, however vital some of, them may be, will not be available to the Union, thereby prejudicing the discharge of its national duties and responsibilities.
x x x 
LT. GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL OF MINISTERS 
6.7.19 As a necessary corollary to the establishment of a responsible Government for Delhi the structure of the executive should be more or less on the pattern provided by the Constitution. Accordingly, there should be a Head of the Administration with a Council of Ministers answerable to the Legislative Assembly. As Delhi will continue to have the status of a Union territory, Article 239 will apply to it and so it will have an Administrator with such designation as may be specified. The present designation of the Lt. Governor may be continued and recognized in the Constitution itself. … 
x x x 
6.7.21 The Administrator should be expressly required to perform his functions on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The expression "to aid and advice" is a well understood term of art to denote the implications of the Cabinet system of Government adopted by our Constitution. Under this system, the general rule is that the exercise of executive functions by the Administrator has to be on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers which means that it is virtually the Ministers that should take decisions on such matters. However, for Delhi, the following modifications of this general rule will have to be adopted: 
(i) Firstly, the requirement of acting on the aid and advice of the council of Ministers cannot apply to the exercise by the Administrator of any judicial or quasijudicial functions. The reason is obvious because in respect of such functions there is no question of acting on the advice of another person.
(ii) Secondly, the requirement is only in relation to matters in respect of which the Legislative Assembly has the powers to make laws. This power will be subject to the restrictions already dealt with earlier in the Report. Accordingly, the Council of Ministers will not have jurisdiction to deal with matters excluded from the purview of the Legislative Assembly.
(iii) Thirdly, there is need for a special provision to resolve differences between the Administrator and his Council of Ministers on any matter concerning the administration of Delhi. Normally, the general principle applicable to the system of responsible Government under the Constitution is that the Head of the Administration should act as a mere Constitutional figurehead and will have to accept the advice of the Council of Ministers except when the matter is left to his discretion. However, by virtue of Article 239 of the Constitution, the ultimate responsibility for good administration of Delhi is vested in the President acting through the Administrator. Because of this the Administrator has to take a somewhat more active part in the administration than the Governor of a State. It is, therefore, necessary to reconcile between the need to retain the responsibility of the Administrator to the Centre in this regard and the need to enforce the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Legislature. The best way of doing this is to provide that in case of difference of opinion which cannot be resolved between the Administrator and his Council of Ministers, he should refer the question to the President and the decision of the President thereon will be final. In cases of urgency, if immediate action is necessary, the Administrator may direct action to be taken pending such decision of the President. A provision of this kind was made for this very reason not only in the 1951 Act, but also in the 1963 Act relating to the Union territories as well as in the 1978 Bill.” 

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.