Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2357 of 2017
Govt. of NCT of Delhi ….. Appellant
Versus
Union of India ….. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 887 of 2021
ORDER
1. In this third round of the lis between the present parties, at this
juncture it is not imperative to delve deep into the history of the controversy.
It suffices to succinctly set out the context of the current dispute before this
threeJudge Bench.
2. The first round of proceedings culminated into a reference dated
15.02.2017 to a Constitution Bench via order dated 15.02.2017, to decide
the issues regarding the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution.
Article 239AA provides the constitutional bulwark for the exercise of
legislative powers by the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Delhi
and the Parliament in respect of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It
governs the relationship between these two legislative bodies to enact laws in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2022.05.06
16:02:39 IST
Reason:
relation to corresponding subjects as well as the power of the Parliament to
annul the laws made by the Union Territory through the doctrine of
Page | 1
repugnancy. The relevant extract of Article 239AA of the Constitution reads
as follows:
239AA. Special provisions with respect to Delhi.
xx xx xx xx
(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislative
Assembly shall have power to make laws for the whole or any
part of the National Capital Territory with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in the State List or in the Concurrent List in
so far as any such matter is applicable to Union territories except
matters with respect to Entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State List and
Entries 64, 65 and 66 of that List in so far as they relate to the
said Entries 1, 2 and 18.
(b) Nothing in subclause (a) shall derogate from the powers of
Parliament under this Constitution to make laws with respect to
any matter for a Union territory or any part thereof.
(c) If any provision of a law made by the Legislative Assembly
with respect to any matter is repugnant to any provision of a law
made by Parliament with respect to that matter, whether passed
before or after the law made by the Legislative Assembly, or of an
earlier law, other than a law made by the Legislative Assembly,
then, in either case, the law made by Parliament, or, as the case
may be, such earlier law, shall prevail and the law made by the
Legislative Assembly shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be
void:
Provided that if any such law made by the Legislative
Assembly has been reserved for the consideration of the President
and has received his assent, such law shall prevail in the
National Capital Territory:
Provided further that nothing in this subclause shall prevent
Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the
same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or
repealing the law so made by the Legislative Assembly.
xx xx xx xx
(7) (a) Parliament may, by law, make provisions for giving effect to, or
supplementing the provisions contained in the foregoing clauses and for
all matters incidental or consequential thereto.
(b) Any such law as is referred to in subclause (a) shall not be
deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of
article 368 notwithstanding that it contains any provision which amends
or has the effect of amending, this Constitution.
Page | 2
xx xx xx xx
(emphasis supplied)
3. The Constitution Bench delivered three separate concurring opinions
on the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution in its final verdict
dated 04.07.2018. The matter was thereafter placed before a twoJudge
Bench of this Court to decide the remaining issues in light of the principles
enunciated by the Constitution Bench.
4. In the second round of the proceedings, the twoJudge Bench vide its
decision dated 14.02.2019, resolved all issues except for one, which was
with regard to the legislative competence of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi in
relation to the subject matter of ‘services’ as contained in Entry 41 of List II
of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Both the learned judges held
divergent viewpoints on this issue, primarily hinged on the interpretation
accorded by them to the phrase “
in so far as any such matter is
” which finds mention in subclause (a) of
applicable to Union Territories
clause (3) of Article 239AA. Accordingly, the matter was referred to a larger
Bench. This is how we are now seized of the matter.
5. During the course of the hearing, Union of India has moved an
application seeking reference of the present dispute to a Constitution Bench
keeping in view Article 145(3) of the Constitution, on the premise that the
erstwhile Constitution Bench, while construing Article 239AA, has not
elucidated on the true meaning and import of the expression “ in so far as
Page | 3
any such matter is applicable to Union Territories ” as mentioned in sub
clause (a) clause (3) of Article 239AA. Additionally, the Respondent has
raised the issue that the interpretation of the phrase “ Subject to the
provisions of this Constitution ” as contained in the same subclause, has
not been prominently explained in the Constitution Bench’s decision dated
04.07.2018. Consequently, it has been urged that in the absence of a
conclusive pronouncement on the interpretation of these two phrases, the
ongoing controversy relating to the scope of legislative competence of the
Govt of NCT of Delhi in relation to the subject matter of “services” cannot be
authoritatively settled without reference to a Constitution Bench, as
envisaged under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.
6. The Respondent has further alluded to the amendments brought
through the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment)
Act, 2021 and Transaction of Business of the Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Rules, 2021, constitutionality
whereof has been challenged by the Appellant in Writ Petition (Civil) No 887
of 2021. It is asserted that the interpretation of clause (3) of Article 239AA of
the Constitution, is not only the central point for determination in the
instant case but would also have an indelible impact on the validity of the
said amendments. It may be noticed that the aforementioned writ petition
has also been tagged with the present civil appeal.
7. Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has
emphatically opposed the prayer sought by the Respondent, as according to
Page | 4
him, Article 239AA(3) has been exhaustively interpreted by the erstwhile
Constitution Bench, both in explicit as well as in implicit terms. He has
further argued that the solitary unresolved issue could be conclusively
decided by the present three judges’ bench, without any legal necessity to
make a further reference to a Constitution Bench. Dr. Singhvi also posited
that the question of interpretation of Article 239AA(3) of the Constitution
having been authoritatively settled by the earlier Constitution Bench, cannot
be reopened on the mere asking of the Respondent as the same would be
contradictory to the doctrine of precedent.
8. From the reference application moved by the Union of India, as well
as the rival contentions of the parties, the main bone of contention relates to
the interpretation of the phrases: “
in so far as any such matter is
” and “
applicable to Union Territories Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution ” as contained in Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution. On
perusing the Constitution Bench judgment, it appears that all the issues
except the one pending consideration before this bench, have been
elaborately dealt with. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to revisit the
issues that already stand settled by the previous Constitution Bench.
9. The limited issue that has been referred to this Bench, relates to the
scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and NCT Delhi with
respect to the term “services”. The Constitution Bench of this Court, while
interpreting Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, did not find any occasion
Page | 5
to specifically interpret the impact of the wordings of the same with respect
to Entry 41 in the State List.
10. We therefore, deem it appropriate to refer the above limited question,
for an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench in terms of
Article 145(3) of the Constitution.
11.
The registry is directed to place the papers of the present appeal as well as
the connected writ petition before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the
administrative side for constituting a Bench of five judges.
…………………….. CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
………..………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
………..………………… J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI
May 06, 2022
Page | 6