Lieutenant Governor Bound by Aid and Advice of Delhi Council of Ministers, No Independent Decision-Making Power: Supreme Court

Appeals against a Delhi High Court decision on the powers of the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor were referred to a Constitution Bench to interpret Article 239AA (Misra CJI, paras 12-13). Delhi became a Union Territory in 1956, and the Sixty-ninth Amendment of 1991 inserted Articles 239AA and 239AB (Misra CJI, paras 14-16). The Delhi Government claimed a status close to a State, while the Union and the Lieutenant Governor relied on Delhi's status as a Union Territory (Misra CJI, paras 17-18, 183-184).

The Constitution must be read in the light of its spirit, which includes its democratic nature and representative participation (Misra CJI, para 11). Following the nine-Judge Bench in New Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi cannot be a State, and the Lieutenant Governor remains an Administrator (Misra CJI, paras 191, 196). The executive power of the Delhi Government is co-extensive with the Assembly's legislative power, while the Union has exclusive executive power over the three excluded subjects (Misra CJI, paras 199, 277). Collective responsibility would be negated if the Lieutenant Governor refused to give effect to legitimate Cabinet decisions (Misra CJI, para 277). 'Any matter' in the proviso to Article 239AA(4) does not mean 'every matter'; differences must be resolved through dialogue under the 1993 Rules before a reference (Misra CJI, paras 276-277). The Lieutenant Governor should not act mechanically or as an obstructionist (Misra CJI, para 277). Chandrachud J. held that a contrived difference cannot be referred (Chandrachud J., para 143). Bhushan J. agreed that the Lieutenant Governor's concurrence is not required (Bhushan J., conclusions after para 119).