2018 (7) TMI 1426 - SUPREME COURT

Interpretation of Statute - Article 239AA of the Constitution - 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?

Held that:- It would be fundamentally inappropriate to assign to the NCT a status similar to other Union territories. Article 239AA(4) is a special provision which was adopted to establish a special constitutional arrangement for the governance of the NCT, albeit within the rubric of Union territories. In interpreting the provisions of Article 239AA, this Court cannot adopt a blinkered view, which ignores legislative and constitutional history. While adopting some of the provisions of the Acts of 1963 and 1966, Parliament in its constituent capacity omitted some of the other provisions of the legislative enactments which preceded the sixty ninth amendment. The relationship between the Council of Ministers and the Administrator of the Union territory evolved as Delhi progressed from a Part C State (before the Seventh Amendment) to a Union Territory governed by legislation - As a Union territory, the position of Delhi has evolved from being administered by an Administrator Under Article 239A following the fourteenth amendment and from governance under the earlier enactments of Parliament to its present-day status as a national capital territory governed by a specific constitutional provision: Article 239AA.

The constitutional principle which emerges is that while Delhi presents a special case, quite unlike the other Union territories, the constitutional provisions governing it are an amalgam between national concerns (reflected in control by the Union) and representative democracy (expressed through the mandate of a Council of Ministers which owes collective responsibility to a directly elected legislature). There is no gainsaying the fact that the control by the Union, is also control of the President acting on the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers which in turn owes collective responsibility to Parliament. Constitutional statesmanship between the two levels of governance, the Centre and the Union territory, ought to ensure that practical issues are resolved with a sense of political maturity and administrative experience. This Court has to step in only because skirmishes between the two have raised constitutional issues of the proper distribution of executive control over the National Capital Territory.

The interpretation of the Constitution has to be purposive taking into consideration the need of time and Constitutional principles. The intent of the Constitution framers, the object and reasons of a Constitutional Amendment always throw light on the Constitutional provisions. For adopting the purposive interpretation of a particular provision the express language employed cannot be given a complete go-bye - The Parliament has power to make laws for NCTD in respect of any of the matters enumerated in State List and Concurrent List. The Legislative Assembly of NCTD has also legislative power with respect to matters enumerated in the State List (except excepted entries) and in the Concurrent List.

When the Constitution was enforced, executive power of Union in reference to Part C States with regard to Concurrent List was not excluded. Part C States having been substituted by 7th Constitution Amendment as Union Territories. The word 'State' as occurring in proviso to Article 73 after 7th Constitution Amendment cannot be read as including Union Territory. Reading the word 'Union Territory' within the word 'State' in proviso to Article 73 shall not be in consonance with scheme of Part VIII (Union Territories) of the Constitution.

From persons holding high office, it is expected that they shall conduct themselves in faithful discharge of their duties so as to ensure smooth running of administration so that rights of all can be protected.