The Supreme Court judgement in July 2018 regarding the power struggle between the Lieutenant Governor (LG) and the elected government of Delhi has had some impact in settling the political tussle, but it has not completely resolved the issue. This can be examined by considering the key aspects of the judgement and its implications for the relationship between the LG and the Delhi government.

Firstly, the judgement clarified the constitutional provisions and established the role and responsibilities of both the LG and the elected government. It stated that the LG should not act as an obstructionist and must work harmoniously with the elected government. This has provided clarity on the division of powers between the two entities and has set a precedent for future interactions.

Secondly, the judgement upheld the elected government's power to make decisions on a wide range of subjects like public order, police, and land, except for matters of national security and land disputes. This has given the Delhi government a level of autonomy in decision-making and decreased the LG's ability to unilaterally block or interfere in its policies. This, in turn, has reduced some of the political tussle and power struggle between the two.

However, it is important to note that the judgement did not completely settle the issue of the LG's power. It stated that exceptional matters should be referred to the President, effectively giving the President the final say. This leaves some room for interpretation and potential challenges in the future, as political disagreements may still arise, and decisions may be referred to the President, leading to further disputes.

Furthermore, the judgement did not address the broader issue of full statehood for Delhi, which is a fundamental demand of the elected government. The Delhi government argues that until it attains full statehood, the political tussle will persist since ultimate power and authority will remain with the LG and the central government. This unresolved issue hampers a complete settlement of the political tussle.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court judgement in July 2018 has brought some clarity and reduced the political tussle between the LG and the elected government of Delhi, it has not fully settled the issue. The ongoing disputes regarding exceptional matters and the demand for full statehood continue to pose challenges to a complete resolution.

The Supreme Court Judgement of July 2018, regarding the powers of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) and the elected government of Delhi, did not completely settle the political tussle between the two. While it clarified certain aspects of their respective roles, it left some ambiguities which continue to fuel disagreements and conflicts.

Here's a breakdown:

What the Judgement Stated:

• Executive Authority: The Court ruled that the Delhi government, led by the elected Chief Minister, has executive authority over all matters except "public order, police, and land". These three subjects remain under the LG's jurisdiction.
• LG's Role: The LG was instructed to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (elected government) in all matters other than the three reserved subjects. This essentially meant that the LG cannot act independently but should follow the advice of the elected government.
• "Aid and Advice" Interpretation: The Judgement emphasized that the "aid and advice" from the elected government should not be merely "rubber-stamping" but should involve genuine consideration and discussion.

Continued Tussle:

Despite the Supreme Court's clear pronouncements, the political tussle continued due to:

• Ambiguity in "Aid and Advice": The exact scope and meaning of "aid and advice" remained unclear. This led to differing interpretations and accusations of overstepping boundaries.
• Reserved Subjects: The three reserved subjects (public order, police, and land) continue to be a major point of contention. The elected government often claims that the LG interferes even in matters falling under their jurisdiction.
• Legislative Powers: The Judgement did not directly address the elected government's legislative powers. This leaves room for disputes concerning the LG's right to refer bills to the President.
• Political Differences: The BJP-led central government, controlling the LG, and the AAP-led Delhi government often clash over ideological and political differences. This exacerbates the existing power struggle.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court Judgement of July 2018 provided some clarity on the relationship between the LG and the elected government of Delhi. However, it failed to completely settle the political tussle due to ongoing ambiguities and the inherent political differences between the parties involved. The battle for control continues, and the question of who has the final say in Delhi's governance remains a point of contention.

It's important to note that the Supreme Court's interpretation can evolve further depending on future cases and developments. The political dynamics between the LG and the elected government may change in the future, and the situation might require further intervention from the judiciary to resolve the lingering issues.

The Supreme Court judgment of July 2018, in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India, aimed to settle the constitutional dispute between the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi and the elected government of Delhi, led by the Chief Minister. The judgment clarified the powers and responsibilities of the LG and the Delhi government, but its implementation has been partial, and the political tussle continues. Here's an examination of the judgment's impact:

Clarifications and implications:

1. LG's role: The Supreme Court emphasized that the LG is not the administrative head of Delhi, and his role is limited to ensuring that the Delhi government does not act in contravention of the Constitution or any law. The LG cannot act unilaterally without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
2. Delhi government's powers: The court upheld the Delhi government's authority to govern the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, including matters like services, land, and police. The government has the power to take decisions on these matters, subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act, 1991.
3. Aid and advice: The Supreme Court reiterated that the LG is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where the Constitution or a law requires him to act independently.

Reasons for continued tussle:

1. Interpretation of judgment: The LG and the Delhi government have differing interpretations of the judgment, leading to continued disputes. The LG has been accused of still interfering in matters that are outside his purview, while the Delhi government claims that the LG is not adhering to the court's directions.
2. Notification and rules: The judgment relied on notifications and rules issued by the Central government, which have not been amended or revised to reflect the court's clarifications. This has created uncertainty and scope for disputes.
3. Services dispute: The most significant point of contention remains the distribution of services, including the transfer and posting of bureaucrats. The Delhi government has been demanding control over services, which the LG and the Central government have resisted.
4. Implementation and enforcement: The Supreme Court's judgment has not been fully implemented, and the Delhi government has accused the LG and the Central government of not taking concrete steps to enforce the court's directions.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court judgment of July 2018 provided significant clarifications on the powers and responsibilities of the LG and the Delhi government, its implementation has been partial, and the political tussle continues. The LG and the Delhi government need to work towards a mutually acceptable understanding of the judgment, and the Central government must take steps to amend notifications and rules to reflect the court's directions. Only then can the judgment bring about a lasting settlement to the constitutional dispute.