Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Refers Controversial NCT Ordinance to Constitution Bench, Questions Validity of Parliament's Power

04 September 2024 10:34 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, July 20, 2023: In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has referred the constitutional validity of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 [“NCT Ordinance”] to a Constitution Bench. The NCT Ordinance, which was promulgated by the President on May 19, 2023, has been a subject of contention and has raised concerns about the extent of legislative and executive powers vested in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD).

"The disposal of the writ petition requires this Court to answer a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution." - Chief Justice of India, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud.

The Court has posed critical questions regarding the scope of Parliament's authority under Article 239-AA(7) of the Constitution, which grants the power to make laws affecting NCTD. The NCT Ordinance introduced Section 3A in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act 1991 [“GNCTD Act”], thereby excluding Entry 41 of List II from GNCTD's legislative competence.

The judgment highlights that the NCT Ordinance has potentially abrogated the principles of governance for NCTD, raising concerns about the democratic will and accountability of the elected government to the public. The Court observed, "The triple chain of accountability requires the permanent executives to be responsible to the elected government, the elected government to be responsible to the legislature, and the legislature to be responsible to the public." The impact of the NCT Ordinance on these principles has become a focal point of the legal battle.

The Court also draws attention to the apparent conflict between Article 239-AA(7)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. While (a) specifies that laws must only give effect to or supplement the provisions of Article 239-AA, (b) denotes that such laws could alter the existing constitutional structure of governance for NCTD. This conflict raises concerns over the validity of Parliament's exercise of power under Article 239-AA(7).

Chief Justice of India, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, leading the Bench, stated, "Neither the 2018 Constitution Bench judgment nor the 2023 Constitution Bench judgment has dealt with the interpretation of Article 239-AA(7). We are of the considered opinion that the disposal of the writ petition requires this Court to answer a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution."

The judgment comes after the protracted legal battle between the Union of India and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi on the administration of NCTD. The Constitution Bench has been tasked with resolving the questions of law and deciding on the validity of the NCT Ordinance. The Court's ruling is eagerly awaited as it could have far-reaching implications on the governance structure and executive powers in the national capital.

As the case proceeds to the Constitution Bench, the nation watches closely to see how the apex court interprets the constitutional provisions and clarifies the extent of Parliament's power over the governance of Delhi.

Date of Decision: July 20, 2023

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi  vs Union of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News