LexDELHI BAR ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·- 12ooara-s--:-c.R-:-a9a A DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION 't" l v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 437 of 2000} E? MAY 15, 2008 · [B.N. AGRAWAL, P.P. NAOLEKAR AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.] Punjab Courts Act, 1918; S.19/Government of National -4~ Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991; S.41 and Notification dated c June 28,2000 issued by Lt. Government of Delhi: Notification issued by Lt. Governor of National Capital \"" o;:~ Territory of Delhi dividing Delhi into nine Civil Districts - Chai- lenge to - Held: Need of Bifurcation of Delhi into nine civil .. districts has been stressed and very succinctly dealt with in D the order of Supreme Court dated May 1,2000passed in WP© No. 74111989 - The Court while giving such direction neither r exceeded its jurisdiction nor encroached upon the essentially executive legislative function of authorities - Before taking policy decision, Delhi Government consulted, all the authori- E ties, thus the policy decision so taken was not arbitrary/with- out jurisdicpon - In terms of Article 239AA of the Constitution, the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi empowered to make . laws for whole/part of the Territory with certain exception - Ad- ministration of justice and Constitution of Courts as provided '( F under Entry 11A of Concurrent List falls under the jurisdiction ' .of the Legislative Assembly -Notification in question issued 'by Lt. Governer in exercise of powers conferred uls.19(1) of 1918 Act dividing Delhi into nine civil districts - It neither de- fines, enlarge, alters amends or diminishes the jurisdiction of G courts - It falls under the discretionary powers of the Lt. Gov- ernor uls.41of1991Act-1918 Act being the Central legisla- ~ . tion will have the primacy over the legislation made by the ,,. Delhi Assembly - Thus, S. 19 of 1918 Act shall prevail on the subject C'ind the Notification issued thereunder shall not be H 898 / DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 899 INDIA & ORS. invalidated merely because the subject a/so falls within the A Concurrent list, hence, valid - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 239A(3)(a}, 239AA and Entry 11 of Concurrent List to Schedule II of the Constitution. Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 239AA -Capital Ter- ritory of Delhi and administrative power of Lt. Governor - 8 Change of nomenclature of Union Territory of Delhi to Na- tional Capital Territory of Delhi - Discussed. Words & Phrases: State Government - Definition of - Discussed in the con- C text of s. 5(a) of the West Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 and General Clauses Act, 1894. Extension of application of a Provincial Act to a territory by legislature, Effect of - Held: It would be deemed to be an D enactment of such legislature - Constitution oflndia, 1950 - Article 246(4). Petitioner, the Delhi Bar Association filed the instant petition challenging creation of nine civil districts in Delhi in terms of the Notification dated June 28, 2000 issued by E Lt. Governor of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred on him u/sub- section(1) of 5.19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The Petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned Notifi- cation to prohibit the respondents from bifurcating Delhi F into nine districts. The Notfication was issued by the Lt.Governor in pursuance of direction of this Court dated May 1,2006 in another Writ Petition(Civil) No. 7 41/1989 filed by the Delhi Judicial Service Association(Regd.) against Union of India and Others. G Appellant contended that that there was no specific explicit administrative decision to divide Delhi into nine judicial districts in order to create nine separate courts in the Union Territory of Delhi and that at no point of time there was a consensual decision taken by the Chief Jus- H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R. A tice of Delhi High Court and the Lt. Governor of Delhi agreeing to have nine judicial districts; that the subject of correspondence between the Registrar, High Court of Delhi and the Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi was in fact in favour of division of Delhi into five judicial dis- 8 tricts and it is not clear as to when and how this figure of five was converted into a figure of nine in the absence of consensual decision either by the High Court or by the -1 Government of NCT; that before arriving at such a deci- sion, the authorities concerned were required to apply c their mind
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.