New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking full statehood for Delhi saying it has become “infructuous” in view of the constitution bench verdict which had held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a state.
The matter came up for hearing before a bench comprising Justices Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta and the advocate appearing for the petitioner referred to the judgement delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench on July 4.
“It (petition) is infructuous,” the bench said while dismissing the plea.
Also Read: Decoding Delhi’s Demand for Full Statehood
The court was hearing a plea seeking to declare Article 239AA (which deals with powers and status of Delhi) of the Constitution and The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act 1991 as “unconstitutional” on the ground that a territory of India has to be either a full state or a union territory.
The plea had also alleged that constitutional arrangements for Delhi were responsible for the mismanagement in the administration of the national capital which results in several problems including air pollution, traffic jams, water logging, unauthorised constructions.
Also Read: Neither Anarchy nor Absolutism – Let Us Have Democracy
It claimed that these issues could be resolved by giving full statehood to Delhi.
The decision comes after a long drawn struggle by the Aam Aadmi Party’s government for full statehood for Delhi. In May 2016, the Aam Aadmi Party government released a draft bill on full statehood for Delhi, seeking to bring the police, land and bureaucracy under its control. The BJP-led Central government, which had earlier advocated for full statehood for Delhi in 1991, was unwilling to give in to these demands, mainly because control over the police and land is required in areas with central government institutions, embassies etc.
In August 2016, the Delhi high court reiterated that the Lieutenant Governor was the administrative head of Delhi and enjoyed wide discretionary powers, following which the Supreme Court, in December, held that the government elected by the people had certain powers and rights and listed the matter for January 18, 2017. Prior to that in July, the Supreme Court had declined to entertain the AAP government’s plea to restrain the Delhi high court from pronouncing a judgment on the merits of the dispute, without first deciding whether it has the jurisdiction to do so.
In November 2017, the Supreme Court observed that the constitutional scheme was tilted in favour of the lieutenant governor, but also emphasised on the fact that the top official cannot “sit on files” for an unreasonable amount of time and must refer matters where he disagrees with the state government, to the president.
Also Read: Why the Delhi High Court Judgment on the LG’s Powers is So Worrying
On July 4, a Constitution bench of the top court had unanimously held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a state while clipping the powers of the Lieutenant Governor stating that the LG must respect the decisions made by the elected government, and act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court, in its 231-page judgment, held that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi cannot be an “obstructionist” and is bound to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The judgment reversed the decision of the Delhi high court that had held the LG to be the “administrative” head of Delhi, by holding out that the “LG is an administrative head in the limited sense, and is not a governor” and that he is “bound by the aid and advise of NCT government in areas other than those exempted.”
The apex court had said that except for three issues — public order, police and land — the Delhi government has the power to legislate and govern on other issues.
It had also held that there was no independent authority vested with the Lieutenant Governor to take independent decisions.
(With inputs from PTI)