Kejriwal-Jung Imbroglio Case Study
Kejriwal-Jung Imbroglio
The main reason for discord in this controversy was, who has the power to appoint and transfer the bureaucrats in Delhi? Whether the power resides with the Lt. Governor or the CM?
Both Kejriwal and Jung accused each other of exceeding their respective authorities but in order to decide the question of veracity, we have to delve into the constitutional rights granted to both the Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
The legal wrangle started when the Chief Secretary, K.K. Sharma went to the U.S. on a personal visit due to which the government had to appoint an interim Chief Secretary. Ergo, Mr. Jung appointed an IAS officer, Ms Shakuntala Gamlin as the acting the Chief Secretary. This was stiffly opposed …show more content…
Delhi: Whether a State or a UT?
Among the seven UTs, Delhi and Puducherry have a very peculiar nature, they are neither UTs nor full-fledged States.
Clause 1 of Article 239 of the Constitution states that “every Union territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to be appointed by him”.
However, Article 239, which deals with Union Territories, is of no use to Delhi. Instead of Article 239, Delhi is governed by Articles 239AA and 239AB (69th amendment, 1991).
Clause 1 of Article 239AA of the Constitution states:
Administrator appointed under Article 239 shall …show more content…
Albeit the dispute was badly tainted with the narrowly concerned interests of political parties nevertheless the issue was more a matter of constitutional and statutory interpretations than mere vote-bank politics.
Conclusion:
The whole matter was very complicated so it was perhaps very difficult to judge that who went wrong and how? There were some legal moot points in this issue. Kejriwal seems correct because he is democratically elected whereas the Lt. Gov. isn’t. He is entitled to at least have a binding opinion in appointing his bureaucrats. This power advocates the idea of representative government.
After considering many authorities we can say that, there is no such law which provides any sort of discretionary power to the Lt. Gov. to appoint the Chief Secretary and other Bureaucrats on his own. The Lt. Gov. certainly exceeded his lawful authority and acted autocratically.
But clause 4 of Article 239AA further says:
In case of difference in opinions of the CM and Lt. Gov., the Lt. Gov. has a final say in solving it and referring that matter to the
The main reason for discord in this controversy was, who has the power to appoint and transfer the bureaucrats in Delhi? Whether the power resides with the Lt. Governor or the CM?
Both Kejriwal and Jung accused each other of exceeding their respective authorities but in order to decide the question of veracity, we have to delve into the constitutional rights granted to both the Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
The legal wrangle started when the Chief Secretary, K.K. Sharma went to the U.S. on a personal visit due to which the government had to appoint an interim Chief Secretary. Ergo, Mr. Jung appointed an IAS officer, Ms Shakuntala Gamlin as the acting the Chief Secretary. This was stiffly opposed …show more content…
Delhi: Whether a State or a UT?
Among the seven UTs, Delhi and Puducherry have a very peculiar nature, they are neither UTs nor full-fledged States.
Clause 1 of Article 239 of the Constitution states that “every Union territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to be appointed by him”.
However, Article 239, which deals with Union Territories, is of no use to Delhi. Instead of Article 239, Delhi is governed by Articles 239AA and 239AB (69th amendment, 1991).
Clause 1 of Article 239AA of the Constitution states:
Administrator appointed under Article 239 shall …show more content…
Albeit the dispute was badly tainted with the narrowly concerned interests of political parties nevertheless the issue was more a matter of constitutional and statutory interpretations than mere vote-bank politics.
Conclusion:
The whole matter was very complicated so it was perhaps very difficult to judge that who went wrong and how? There were some legal moot points in this issue. Kejriwal seems correct because he is democratically elected whereas the Lt. Gov. isn’t. He is entitled to at least have a binding opinion in appointing his bureaucrats. This power advocates the idea of representative government.
After considering many authorities we can say that, there is no such law which provides any sort of discretionary power to the Lt. Gov. to appoint the Chief Secretary and other Bureaucrats on his own. The Lt. Gov. certainly exceeded his lawful authority and acted autocratically.
But clause 4 of Article 239AA further says:
In case of difference in opinions of the CM and Lt. Gov., the Lt. Gov. has a final say in solving it and referring that matter to the