Skip to content

BREAKING: President Gives Assent To GNCTD Amendment Bill Enhancing Powers Of Delhi Lieutenant Governor

first_imgTop StoriesBREAKING: President Gives Assent To GNCTD Amendment Bill Enhancing Powers Of Delhi Lieutenant Governor LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK28 March 2021 10:01 AMShare This – xThe President of India, Ram Nath Kovind on Sunday granted assent to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which enhances the powers of the Delhi Lieutenant Governor over the elected government of the GNCTD.The Parliament had passed the bill on March 24, amid a walkout by the opposition in the Rajya Sabha.The President was admitted to the AIIMS…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe President of India, Ram Nath Kovind on Sunday granted assent to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which enhances the powers of the Delhi Lieutenant Governor over the elected government of the GNCTD.The Parliament had passed the bill on March 24, amid a walkout by the opposition in the Rajya Sabha.The President was admitted to the AIIMS Hospital Delhi, after he complained of chest pain, and is expected to undergo a bye-pass surgery on March 30. The Bill seeks to enhance the powers of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi by declaring him to be the “Government of Delhi”. It also provides that the opinion of the LG “shall be obtained” on all such matters as may be specified by the LG, before taking any executive action on decisions of the Council of Ministers of the Delhi Government.Read the Gazette Notification published with regard to the GNCTD Amendment Bill.#GNCTDBill @rashtrapatibhvn pic.twitter.com/oitg6GAogw— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) March 28, 2021 Salient features of the Bill: The Bill seeks to amend the GNCT of Delhi Act, 1991, a legislation that provides framework for functioning of the Delhi Legislative Assembly and re-defines Delhi Government as the Lieutenant Governor (LG). It curbs the Delhi Assembly’s power to conduct its proceedings as per the rules of procedure made by it. It provides that the Rules made by the Delhi Legislative Assembly to regulate the procedure and conduct of business in the Assembly must be consistent with the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha. The Bill also prohibits the Legislative Assembly from making any rule to enable itself or its Committees to: (i) consider the matters of day-to-day administration of the NCT of Delhi and (ii) conduct any inquiry in relation to administrative decisions. Further, any provision in force having the above said effect will be void. Further, the Bill provides that the opinion of the LG must be obtained before taking any executive action on decisions of Delhi Government, on such matters as may be specified by the LG. Comparison with Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment This last leg of the Bill, requiring the Government to mandatorily seek the Lieutenant Governor’s opinion on the matters so specified by him may be contrasted with the observations made by the Supreme Court in GNCT of Delhi v. Union of India & Anr. (commonly known as Delhi v. LG case). Delineating the boundaries of power between the Lieutenant-Governor and Delhi Government in the said judgment, the Supreme Court had held that the LG cannot interfere in each and every decision of the Delhi Government, and that the LG is bound by the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers of the Delhi Government, except in matters of land, police and public order. The Constitution Bench comprising of then CJI Dipak Misra, Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan had ruled that “LG is an administrative head in the limited sense, and is not a Governor. He is bound by the aid and advise of NCT Government in areas other than those exempted”, The Top Court had observed that the elected representatives and the Council of Ministers of Delhi, being accountable to the voters of Delhi, must have the appropriate powers so as to perform their functions effectively and efficiently. It was held that the Parliamentary form of government is based on principle of “collective responsibility” of the cabinet. “If a well deliberated legitimate decision of the Council of Ministers is not given effect to due to an attitude to differ on the part of the Lieutenant Governor, then the concept of collective responsibility would stand negated,” the Supreme Court had held. The Constitution bench added that the real purpose behind the Constitution (Sixty­-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991, which inserted Section 239AA (Special provisions with respect to Delhi) and paved way for setting up an elected Government in the Union Territory was “to establish a democratic setup and representative form of government wherein the majority has a right to embody their opinion in laws and policies pertaining to the NCT of Delhi subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” It was held that to realize this real purpose, it is necessary to give a purposive interpretation to Article 239AA so that the principles of democracy and federalism which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution are reinforced in NCT of Delhi in their truest sense. “The exercise of establishing a democratic and representative form of government for NCT of Delhi by insertion of Articles 239AA and 239AB would turn futile if the Government of Delhi that enjoys the confidence of the people of Delhi is not able to usher in policies and laws over which the Delhi Legislative Assembly has power to legislate for the NCT of Delhi,” the order stated. Parliamentary Debate In this backdrop, many members opposed the Bill. Leader of Opposition in the House, M. Mallikarjun Kharge said that the Government is trying to seize the powers of elected representatives in Delhi in order to run a “proxy Government” by handing over all the powers to a nominated LG. He said that such centralization of power is against the Constitutional principles and the Bill must be referred to a Select committee for scrutiny. MP from a constituency of Delhi, Sanjay Singh strongly opposed the Bill as being unconstitutional. He referred to Article 239AA(6) of the Constitution which states that “the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly”. He said that this being the position of the Constitution, there is no scope for the Government to make the Council of Ministers responsible to the LG by seeking his opinion for implementation of its orders. Remarks by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is also a member of the Parliament, vehemently opposed the Bill. “This is the most pernicious, most unconstitutional Bill which this House has ever received,” he said at the outset. He emphasized that Delhi was especially inserted Constitutionally by Article 239AA which provided that it should be a full state and all provisions that apply to a State shall apply to Delhi. This is barring the power to legislate upon matters of public order, police and land. He told the House that he appeared before the Supreme Court in Delhi v. LG case and will cite certain excerpts from the Constitution Bench judgment that will demonstrate that the Bill in question tries to nullify the effect of that judgment. He quoted: “A conjoint reading of Article 239AA (3) (a) and Article 239AA(4) reveals that the executive power of the Government of NCT of Delhi is co­extensive with the legislative power of the Delhi Legislative Assembly which is envisaged in Article 239AA(3) and which extends over all but three subjects in the State List and all subjects in the Concurrent List and, thus, Article 239AA(4) confers executive power on the Council of Ministers over all those subjects for which the Delhi Legislative Assembly has legislative power” (emphasis supplied). He further quoted, “Article 239AA(4) confers executive powers on the Government of NCT of Delhi whereas the executive power of the Union stems from Article 73 and is co­extensive with the Parliament’s legislative power. Further, the ideas of pragmatic federalism and collaborative federalism will fall to the ground if we are to say that the Union has overriding executive powers even in respect of matters for which the Delhi Legislative Assembly has legislative powers. Thus, it can be very well said that the executive power of the Union in respect of NCT of Delhi is confined to the three matters in the State List for which the legislative power of the Delhi Legislative Assembly has been excluded under Article 239 AA (3) (a)” (emphasis supplied). Singhvi further read the Supreme Court judgment: “The Lieutenant Governor has not been entrusted with any independent decision­making power. He has to either act on the ‘aid and advice’ of Council of Ministers or he is bound to implement the decision taken by the President on a reference being made by him.” He remarked that the Bill is not only against Article 239AA of the Constitution but is also opposed to the Supreme Court judgment and the principles of Federalism. He added that Cause 4 of the Bill precludes the Delhi Legislative Assembly from considering matters of day-to-day administration of the Capital or from conducting inquiries in relation to administrative decisions. This he said, is against Entry 39 in List II under Schedule VII of the Constitution which provides that powers of Legislative Assembly are within the domain of the State Government. With respect to the provision requiring LG’s opinion before implementation of Government’s decisions, Singhvi said that it is against sub-clause 6 under Article 239AA of the Constitution which states that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly. “But this Bill says that everyone will be responsible to LG. This is direct contradiction,” Singhvi remarked. Government’s reply Union Minister G Kishan Reddy claimed that the Bill does not propose to bring any Constitutional amendment. He insisted that the Bill only seeks to clear certain ambiguities in the law. Reddy claimed that that the Bill neither takes away any right from the Delhi Government nor it confers any new rights on the LG. He said that the proposed amendments are to clarify the points raised after directions from the Supreme Court. “The Honorable Court said it is incumbent on Delhi Government to inform the Lieutenant Governor of its decisions. Some clarification is needed as it is affecting the citizens. It is necessary to remove the administrative uncertainties…It will improve administrative functioning,” he said. BJP MP Bhupender Yadav insisted that Delhi is not a full-fledged State. He said that the territory is essentially a Union Territory whose head, as declared under the Constitution, is the LG. He stated that the proposed amendments to the 1991 Act are in line with General Clauses Act, 1897, which states that the head of the Central Government is the President and that of the State Government is the Governor. He said that since Delhi is a union territory, its head shall be the LG by the same analogy. So far as proposed restrictions on the powers of the Delhi Legislative Assembly are concerned, he said that the same are only being standardized by bringing them in line with the Lok Sabha rules as part of “good governance”. He clarified that the Delhi Assembly Committee may look into Bills, Budgets, etc. However, it cannot look into day-to-day administration of the Government. “If Committee starts looking into criminal cases, what happens with powers of executive police,” he asked. He stated that the Supreme Court in its judgment said that the LG needs to be informed of all the decisions that are made by the Council of Ministers. He insisted that the Bill is simply intended to give effect to that observation.Click here to read the Gazette notification of the GNCTD Bill Click Here To Download BillSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Model situation?

first_imgIn 2009, when the United States fell into economic recession, greenhouse gas emissions also fell, by 6.59 percent relative to 2008.In the power sector, however, the recession was not the main cause.Researchers at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have shown that the primary explanation for the reduction in CO2 emissions from power generation that year was that a decrease in the price of natural gas reduced the industry’s reliance on coal.According to their econometric model, emissions could be cut further by the introduction of a carbon tax, with negligible impact on the price of electricity for consumers.”If the gas price continues to drop, you’ll continue to go down this curve so that you’ll knock out not just the really ancient coal-fired power plants, but maybe some of the more recent coal-fired plants,” said Xi Lu. Image courtesy of Bruno D. Rodrigues via FlickrA regional analysis, assessing the long-term implications for energy investment and policy, appears in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.In the United States, the power sector is responsible for 40 percent of all carbon emissions. In 2009, CO2 emissions from power generation dropped by 8.76 percent. The researchers attribute that change to the new abundance of cheap natural gas.“Generating 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity from coal releases twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere as generating the same amount from natural gas, so a slight shift in the relative prices of coal and natural gas can result in a sharp drop in carbon emissions,” explains Michael B. McElroy, Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies at SEAS, who led the study.“That’s what we saw in 2009,” he says, “and we may well see it again.”Patterns of electricity generation, use, and pricing vary widely across the United States. In parts of the Midwest, for instance, almost half of the available power plants (by capacity) were built to process coal. Electricity production can only switch over to natural gas to the extent that gas-fired plants are available to meet the demand. By contrast, the Pacific states and New England barely rely on coal, so price differences there might make less of an impact.To account for the many variables, McElroy and his colleagues at SEAS developed a model that considers nine regions separately.Their model identifies the relationship between the cost of electricity generation from coal and gas and the fraction of electricity generated from coal.“When the natural gas prices are high, as they were four years ago, if the gas prices come down a little bit, it doesn’t make any difference,” explains lead author Xi Lu, a postdoctoral associate at SEAS. “But there’s a critical price level where the gas systems become more cost-effective than the oldest coal-fired systems.“If the gas price continues to drop, you’ll continue to go down this curve so that you’ll knock out not just the really ancient coal-fired power plants, but maybe some of the more recent coal-fired plants.”The model also predicts that a government-imposed carbon tax on emissions from power generation would drive a move away from coal.“With a relatively modest carbon tax — about $5 per ton of CO2 — you could save 31 million tons of CO2 in the United States, and that would change the price of electricity by a barely noticeable amount,” says McElroy.The initial model was developed by Jackson Salovaara ’11, an applied mathematics concentrator at SEAS. His work was recognized as the “best senior thesis” in the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, earning him the Stone Prize in May 2011.Since then, the model has been “souped up,” incorporating more sophisticated regional data analysis, and producing not just the findings on 2009 but also predictions for more recent years.“While the data from 2011 are not yet available, based on the gas prices, we’re making a confident prediction that there should be a continued shift from coal to natural gas in 2011 as compared to 2008,” says McElroy.“That’s good news for the atmosphere.”The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.last_img read more

Bryant misses potential game winner in Lakers 104-103 loss to Thunder

first_imgYet, all the talk beforehand centered on Durant. He recently told USA Today that he considered Bryant someone “I’d want to play with a guy like that every day.”“I would love for him to play with a guy like Kobe, too,” Lakers coach Byron Scott said. “Especially from a coaching standpoint. It would be nice.”It sure would. The Lakers are off to their worst start in franchise history and are on pace to miss the playoffs for the second consecutive season. Durant becomes an unrestricted free agent in 2016, and he would be an acquisition that would expedite the Lakers’ rebuilding process. After all, Durant posted 30 points in 19 minutes in the Thunder’s loss on Thursday to Golden State before his ankle injury, a performance that Scott called “MVPish.”Bryant has remained noncommittal about playing after his contract expires following the 2015-16 season, but Scott reiterated optimism on that development. “Knowing Kobe the way I do, I think he would say yeah,” Scott said. “He would probably play another year or so if he had a guy like Kevin around. Don’t get me fined. I don’t want the NBA to think I’m tampering or anything like that. I’m just answering questions.”Thunder coach Scott Brooks hardly sounded worried, even if he has noticed Bryant has mentored Durant plenty during his seven-year career.“That’s not even a concern at all,” Brooks said. “I’m concerned about beating the Lakers.”Mission accomplished. Newsroom GuidelinesNews TipsContact UsReport an Error Part of Kobe Bryant’s legacy will partly entail an endless list of game-winning shots and scoring binges that make for an extensive highlight tape.But the Lakers’ 104-103 loss on Friday to the Oklahoma City Thunder will not feature any of those moments.Bryant missed an open 17-foot step-back jumper from the left, the shot clanking off the right side of the rim. The Lakers’ star threw his hands up in disgust, his nine points on 3-of-15 shooting telling the story behind his sluggish play. Bryant leaned on a heavy cast of supporters through his poor shooting night. center_img Lakers forward Ed Davis (16 points) and guard Ronnie Price (14 points) posted season-high performances. Jordan Hill posted 10 points and eight rebounds despite nursing flu symptoms that kept him out of practices on Wednesday and Thursday, as well as the morning shootaround on Friday. Nick Young may have sparked an ejection with 11:24 remaining after he shoved Thunder forward Steven Adams in the throat with his forearm amid frustration over a hard screen. A 3-pointer was also later ruled a two-point shot after referees looked at the replays. But the Lakers’ reserves overcame that absence with even contributions from Carlos Boozer (14 points), Jeremy Lin (12 points) and Wayne Ellington (nine points). But that wasn’t enough to beat Oklahoma City (13-14). Instead, the Lakers (8-18) lost their second in a row. Thunder guard and former UCLA product Russell Westbrook posted a team-leading 31 points on 9-of-22 shooting. Reggie Jackson (25 points), Serge Ibaka (16 points) and Anthony Roberson (10 points) all contributed while Kevin Durant sat out because of a sprained right ankle he suffered in Thursday’s loss to Golden State. Durant was seen before the game limping in a Staples Center hallway, though he did not have a boot or crutches. last_img read more