Article 239AB

Article 239AB provides a constitutional mechanism for central intervention in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi when there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery or administrative failure. Introduced by the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991, this article acts as a safeguard to ensure continuity of governance in the national capital when the elected government or its institutions fail to function in accordance with the Constitution. It is a specialised provision, applicable only to Delhi, modelled partly on Article 356, which allows President’s Rule in states.

Historical Background and Introduction

The special constitutional arrangement for Delhi, established under Article 239AA, introduced a representative government for the National Capital Territory. However, given Delhi’s unique status as the seat of the national government and the potential for political instability in a hybrid governance model, the framers of the Sixty-ninth Amendment Act deemed it necessary to include Article 239AB.
This provision was intended to empower the President of India to assume control of the administration of Delhi in extraordinary circumstances — particularly when governance cannot be carried out according to constitutional provisions or when there is a complete breakdown of the constitutional machinery. The article thus ensures that governance in the national capital remains uninterrupted even during political or administrative crises.

Conditions for Presidential Intervention

Under Article 239AB, the President can act either:

• On a report from the Lieutenant Governor, or
• Based on other information available suggesting that the administration of the NCT cannot be conducted in accordance with Article 239AA or any law made under it.

Two key conditions must be satisfied for the invocation of this provision:

1. The constitutional machinery in the National Capital Territory cannot function according to the provisions of Article 239AA or relevant laws enacted under it.
2. It is necessary or expedient in the interests of proper administration to take over the governance of the NCT.

Once these conditions are met, the President may issue an order assuming control of the administration, ensuring the maintenance of constitutional order.

Powers of the President under Article 239AB

When the President acts under this article, he is empowered to:

• Suspend the operation of any provision of Article 239AA or of any law made under it for the governance of Delhi.
• Specify the duration and conditions of such suspension.
• Make incidental and consequential provisions deemed necessary for the administration of the NCT during the suspension period.

This allows the President to temporarily override the normal constitutional structure of Delhi, including the functioning of its Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers, if required. The governance of the NCT in such cases is usually placed under the control of the Lieutenant Governor, acting directly under the President’s supervision.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 239AB operates within a broader framework governing Union territories, in conjunction with the following provisions:

• Article 239: Provides for the administration of all Union territories under the President through administrators.
• Article 239AA: Establishes the special governance framework for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, including provisions for its Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers.
• Article 356: Although not directly applicable to Delhi, it serves as a constitutional parallel, authorising the imposition of President’s Rule in states when constitutional machinery fails.

Together, these provisions ensure that mechanisms exist to address governance crises while maintaining constitutional continuity across different administrative units.

Judicial Interpretations and Key Case Laws

While Article 239AB has not been invoked frequently, judicial interpretations of related provisions have helped clarify its scope and intent:

• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that constitutional powers, including those under Article 239AB, cannot be exercised in a manner that undermines democracy or federalism.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): Reiterated the need to preserve constitutional balance and prevent excessive centralisation of power.
• Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018): Clarified the powers of the Lieutenant Governor and the Delhi government, emphasising that the LG must generally act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in matters reserved for the Union. This case indirectly influences the interpretation of Article 239AB by reaffirming the need for cooperative federalism and constitutional restraint.

These rulings underline that while the President holds wide powers under Article 239AB, their exercise must align with constitutional principles and democratic norms.

Practical Implications and Administrative Usage

Article 239AB serves as a contingency provision designed for exceptional circumstances. It is primarily intended to address:

• Political instability, such as the collapse of a coalition government or failure to form a ministry.
• Administrative paralysis, where governance cannot proceed effectively under the existing legal or constitutional framework.
• Constitutional crises, including serious breakdowns in law and order or violations of constitutional provisions.

When invoked, the administration of Delhi reverts to direct Union control, and the Lieutenant Governor functions as the principal executive authority. Such an arrangement is temporary, meant only to restore stability and constitutional governance in the NCT.

Criticism and Controversies

Despite its constitutional rationale, Article 239AB has been the subject of considerable debate:

• Potential for central overreach: Critics argue that it can be used to undermine the democratic mandate of the elected government in Delhi, enabling the Centre to assert excessive control over local governance.
• Ambiguity of triggers: The article does not clearly define what constitutes a “failure of constitutional machinery,” leaving room for subjective interpretation.
• Role of the Lieutenant Governor: Since the LG reports directly to the President, his assessment can significantly influence the invocation of Article 239AB, raising concerns about impartiality during politically sensitive periods.

These issues underscore the delicate balance between ensuring national interests and preserving democratic autonomy in the governance of the National Capital Territory.

Federal and Constitutional Significance

Article 239AB exemplifies India’s flexible approach to federalism. It acknowledges that while Delhi enjoys partial self-government, it remains of national significance and therefore subject to Union oversight. The article reflects the constitutional philosophy of maintaining order and stability through a system of checks and balances.