Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Stating that in a democracy, “the real power of administration must reside in the elected arm of the state”, the Supreme Court held that the state government will have legislative and executive control over administrative services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) except with regard to public order, police and land.
The Supreme Court also sought to distinguish NCTD from other Union territories. “NCTD, having a sui generis federal model, must be allowed to function in the domain charted for it by the Constitution.
The Union and NCTD share a unique federal relationship. It does not mean that NCTD is subsumed in the unit of the Union merely because it is not a ‘State’,” a five-judge Constitution bench chaired by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said in a unanimous decision.
Governor asking Thackeray for floor test not justified, but can’t restore govt: SC (Page no. 1)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The Supreme Court said former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s decision to ask then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the house was “not justified”, but said it cannot restore his government since he had not faced the floor test. It also said “the Governor was justified in inviting Mr. (Eknath) Shinde to form the government” after Thackeray quit.
Koshyari had sought a floor test following a rebellion by a section of Shiv Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde in June 2022. In its judgement, the Supreme Court said the “floor test cannot be used as a medium to resolve internal party disputes or intra party disputes” and noted that “dissent and disagreement within a political party must be resolved in accordance with the remedies prescribed under the party constitution, or through any other methods that the party chooses to opt for”.
In a unanimous ruling on petitions filed by Thackeray and Shinde factions relating to the political crisis that led to the fall of the three-party Maha Vikas Aghadi government in Maharashtra, the five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, that the Governor was not justified because he did not have reasons based on objective material before him to reach the conclusion that Mr. Thackeray had lost the confidence of the House. However, the status quo ante cannot be restored because Mr. Thackeray did not face the floor test and tendered his resignation.
Sexual harassment panels: NHRC notice to sports bodies, ministry (Page no. 1)
(GS Paper 1, Social Issues)
Taking suo motu cognizance report highlighting non-compliance of provisions under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) law by national sports federations, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on Thursday issued notices to the erring sports bodies along with the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.
The NHRC also sent notices to the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
Giving the federations four weeks to submit detailed reports, the NHRC said non-compliance of the PoSH law was a “matter of concern” which could “impact the legal right and dignity of sportspersons”.
Last month, the MC Mary Kom-led committee formed by the government that looked into allegations of sexual harassment by some of the nation’s top wrestlers against Wrestling Federation of India chief and BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh pointed out the absence of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), as mandated by the 2013 PoSH Act.
The investigation revealed that the wrestling body wasn’t the only one violating the law. Sixteen out of 30 sports federations — of disciplines in which India has participated in the 2018 Asian Games, the Tokyo Olympics in 2021 and last year’s Commonwealth Games — did not have a fully-compliant ICC.
Govt & Politics
PM Modi recalls nuclear tests, says India looks at tech for progress, not to assert itself (Page no. 7)
(GS Paper 3, Science and Technology)
Calling May 11, the day the then Atal Bihari Vajpayee government conducted nuclear tests at Pokhran in 1998, one of the most prestigious days in India’s history that “not only helped India prove its scientific capabilities but also boosted the country’s global stature”, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that he country considers technology “as a tool of the nation’s progress, not a means to assert its dominance”.
Modi said measures taken since 2014 have resulted in big changes in the field of science and technology. “The Start-up India Campaign, Digital India, and National Education Policy have helped India gain new heights in the field.
The number of patents has increased from 4,000 per year 10 years ago to more than 30,000 today. Registration of designs has grown from 10,000 to 15,000 in this period. The number of trademarks has grown from less than 70,000 to more than 2,50,000.
Editorial
With great power and respect (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
As Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud read out a unanimous judgment, treating Delhi on par with full-fledged states (except for three entries in the State List), and giving control over the civil servants to the elected government, memories of what has been going on since 2015 flashed before one’s eyes.
The need for the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) to abide by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers on all matters except police, land and law and order was settled by the Supreme Court in its 2018 judgment.
However, it had left the question of control over services (officers) undecided. This was addressed subsequently but had to go to a still bigger bench because of dissent.
Finally, we have today a decision which may or may not be followed in letter and spirit but will nonetheless be almost impossible to overturn.
Citizens of Delhi have become accustomed to watching a periodic tug of war between Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and the political executive and each of the three L-Gs — starting with Najeeb Jung, followed by Anil Baijal and now, the incumbent, V K Saxena.
The conflict came to a head in 2021, when the central government brought an amendment to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, giving supremacy to the L-G over the elected government.
It made it incumbent on the elected government to refer almost everything to the L-G and stopped the Delhi Assembly from framing rules, setting up committees or conducting inquiries.
This amendment to the NCTD Act was passed as a supplement to the constitutional provision under Article 239 AA and most retired law officers said then, that it was questionable whether Parliament could bypass the constitutional provisions and give more powers to the central government.
Whether the Supreme Court has referred to the NCT supplementary amendment Act is not clear right now but by observing that the “L-G’s powers do not empower him to interfere with the legislative powers of the Delhi assembly and the elected government”, it does not uphold the amendment.
Ideas page
The apex court’s red lines (Page no. 13)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
“Uddhav Thackeray needs political acumen, he shouldn’t have resigned as chief minister without putting up a fight”, noted Sharad Pawar, one of the country’s most battle-hardened politicians, in his recently launched biography.
Pawar’s observations find an echo in the Supreme Court’s Thursday’s judgment on political developments in Maharashtra, which also marked the boundaries of the three constitutional arms of the state machinery, namely governors, the Election Commission and presiding officers of legislatures. From here onwards, a hostile takeover of state governments with active gubernatorial support will be difficult, if not impossible.
First, about the role of the governor. The SC observation that the Maharashtra governor used powers he doesn’t possess to invite Eknath Shinde-Devendra Fadnavis to form the government is a much-needed shot of adrenaline to recharge the Opposition.
The SC’s sharp criticism of the then governor, Bhagat Singh Koshyari, in a way, recognises the Opposition’s criticism of Raj Bhavan’s role in toppling the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi government.
It was in this context that Sharad Pawar wanted Uddhav Thackeray to face the floor test and use the opportunity to expose the governor.
Thackeray, a relative novice in power games, who was shaken by his closest aide Eknath Shinde’s defection, tendered his resignation instead.
Explained
Key takeaways from Maharashtra verdict (Page no. 15)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Passing a unanimous judgement on the various issues related to the split in Shiv Sena in June 2022, the Supreme Court made strong observations about the role of the then Governor of Maharashtra and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
The court, however, refrained from interfering with the proceedings related to disqualifying 16 MLAs, including Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
Not intervening in the proceedings, the SC said the issue of disqualification ought to be decided as per established procedures in law and the Speaker is the appropriate authority for this under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which lays down the anti-defection law.
The Bench said in the present case, there were “no extraordinary circumstances” warranting the court adjudicating in the matter.
It also clarified that an MLA has the right to participate in proceedings of the House regardless of pendency of any petitions for disqualification.
What titled scales in Delhi govt’s favour (Page no. 15)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Drawing the curtains on an eight-year-long legal battle between the Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi government and the Centre, the Supreme Court ruled that the Delhi government has legislative and executive powers over administrative services in the national capital.
The unanimous ruling by a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, said the decision would further “the basic structure of federalism”.
In 2015, a Union Home Ministry notification said that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi shall exercise control over “services”.
The Delhi government challenged this before the Delhi High Court, which in 2017 upheld the notification. On appeal, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger constitution Bench.
In 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI Dipak Misra, in a unanimous verdict laid down the law that governs the relationship between Delhi and the Centre. The ruling was in favour of the Delhi government.
While the Constitution bench decided the larger questions, the specific issues were to be decided by a two-judge Bench. In 2019, two judges, (who were also part of the larger 5-judge Bench in 2018), Justices Ashok Bhushan and AK Sikri, delivered a split verdict on the specific issue of “services.”
The split verdict then went to a three-judge Bench and eventually a five-judge Constitution Bench, which has now delivered its verdict.