State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India (2018) 8 SCC 501

Case Summary

Full Case Details

[The High Court of Delhi in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India W.P.(C) No.5888/2015 by an
Order dated 08.09.2016 vide Sub-Para (iv) of Para 304 held that:
“It is mandatory under the constitutional scheme to communicate the decision of the Council of
Ministers to the Lt. Governor even in relation to the matters in respect of which power to make
laws has been conferred on the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi under clause (3)(a) of Article
239AA of the Constitution and an order thereon can be issued only where the Lt. Governor does
not take a different view and no reference to the Central Government is requiredin terms of the
proviso to clause (4) of Article 239AA of the Constitution read with Chapter V of the Transaction
of Business of the Government of NCT of Delhi Rules, 1993.”
The said order of the High Court of Delhi was challenged by the Government of NCT of Delhi before the
Supreme Court of India. The two judge bench of the Supreme Court vide order dated15-02-2017 referred
to the Constitutional Bench as substantial questions of law about the interpretation of Article 239AA ofthe
Constitution was involved. Held- the Lieutenant Governor act on the aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers except when he decides to refer the matter to the President for final decision.]
DIPAK MISRA, C.J. (for himself, Sikri and Khanwilkar, JJ.) – 16. On 19.10.1956, the Constitution of
India (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 was passed to implement the provisions of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 which did away with Part A, B, C and D States and only two categories, namely,
States and Union Territories remained and Delhi became a Union Territory to be administered by an
administrator appointed by the President. The Legislative Assembly of Delhi and the Council stood
abolished. In the year 1953, the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 was enacted to provide for
Legislative Assemblies and Council of Ministers for various Union Territories but the provisions of the said
Act were not made applicable to Delhi. The Delhi Administration Act, 1966 was enacted to provide for
limited representative Government for Delhi through a Metropolitan Council comprising of 56 elected
members and five nominated members. In the same year, on 20.08.1966, the Ministry of Home Affairs
issued S.O. No. 2524 that provided, inter alia, that the Lieutenant Governor/Administrator/Chief
Commissioner shall be subject to the control of the President of India and exercise such powers and
discharge the functions of a State Government under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 within the Union
Territories. In the year 1987, the Balakrishnan Committee was set up to submit its recommendations with
regard to the status to be conferred on Delhi and the said Committee recommended that Delhi should
continue to be a Union Territory but there must be a Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers
responsible to the said Assembly with appropriate powers; and to ensure stability, appropriate constitutional
measures should be taken to confer the National Capital a special status. The relevant portion of the
Balakrishnan Committee report reads as follows:
LT. GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
6.7.21. The Administrator should be expressly required to perform his functions on the aid and advice of
the Council of Ministers. The expression “to aid and advice” is a well understood term of art to denote the
implications of the Cabinet system of Government adopted by our Constitution. Under this system, the
general Rule is that the exercise of executive functions by the Administrator has to be on the aid and advice
of his Council of Ministers which means that it is virtually the Ministers that should take decisions on such
matters.

190. We may now focus on the decision in Shamsher Singh AIR 1974 SC 2192. The issue centered around
     the role and the constitutional status of the President. In that context, it has been held that the President and
     the Governor act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and the Constitution does not stipulate
     that the President or the Governor shall act personally without or against the aid and

advice of the Council of Ministers. Further, the Court held that the Governor can act on his own accord in
matters where he is required to act in his own discretion as specified in the Constitution and even while
exercising the said discretion, the Governor is required to act in harmony with the Council of Ministers. We
may hasten to add that the President of India, as has been held in the said case, has a distinguishedrole
on certain occasions.

191. That apart, A.N. Ray, C.J., in Shamsher Singh (supra), has stated thus:
     “15. Article 163(1) states that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the
     head to aid and advice the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or
     under this Constitution, required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion. Article
     163(2) states that if any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which
     the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the
     Governor in his discretion shall be final and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall
     not be called in question on the ground that ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.
     Extracting the words “in his discretion” in relation to exercise of functions, the Appellants contend
     that the Council of Ministers may aid and advise the Governor in Executive functions but the
     Governor individually and personally in his discretion will exercise the constitutional functions of
     appointment and removal of officers in State Judicial Service and other State Services.
     
     It is noticeable that though in Article 74 it is stated that there shall be a Council of Ministers
     with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his
     functions, there is no provision in Article 74 comparable to Article 163 that the aid and advice is
     except in so far as he is required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.
     
     It is necessary to find out as to why the words, in his discretion’ are used in relation to some
     powers of the Governor and not in the case of the President.
     
     Article 143 in the Draft Constitution became Article 163 in the Constitution. The draft
     constitution in Article 144(6) said that the functions of the Governor Under Article with respect
     to the appointment and dismissal of Ministers shall be exercised by him in his discretion. Draft
     Article 144(6) was totally omitted when Article 144 became Article 164 in the Constitution.
     Again Draft Article 153(3) said that the functions of the Governor under Clauses (a) and (c) of
     Clause (2) of the Article shall be exercised by him in his discretion. Draft Article 153(3) was totally
     omitted when it became Article 174 of our Constitution. Draft Article 175 (proviso) said that the
     Governor “may in his discretion return the Bill together with a message requesting that the House
     will reconsider the Bill”. Those words that “the Governor may in his discretion” were omitted when
     it became Article 200. The Governor Under Article 200 may return the Bill with a message
     requesting that the House will reconsider the Bill. Draft Article 188 dealt with provisions in case
     of grave emergencies, Clauses (1) and (4) in Draft Article 188 used to words “in his discretion in
     relation to exercise of power by the Governor. Draft Article 188 was totally omitted Draft Article
     285(1) and (2) dealing with composition and staff of Public Service Commission used the
     expression “in his discretion” in relation to exercise of power by the Governor in regard to
     appointment of the Chairman and Members and making of Regulation. The words “in his discretion”
     in relation to exercise of power by the Governor were omitted when it became Article 316. In
     Paragraph 15 (3) of the Sixth Schedule dealing with annulment or suspension of acts or
     suspension of acts and resolutions of District and Regional Councils it was said that the
     functions of the Governor under the Paragraph shall be exercised by him in his discretion.
     Subparagraph 3 of Paragraph 15 of the Sixth Schedule was omitted at the time of enactment
     of the Constitution.
     
     It is, therefore, understood in the background of these illustrative Draft Articles as to why
     Article 143 in the Draft Constitution which became Article 163 in our Constitution used the
     expression “in his discretion” in regard to some powers of the Governor.
192. Thereafter, A.N. Ray, C.J. discussed the provisions of the Constitution as well as a couple of
     paragraphs of the Sixth Schedule wherein the words “in his discretion” are used in relation to

certain powers of the Governor to highlight the fact that a Governor can act in his discretion only
when the provisions of the Constitution so permit.

196. Thus, New Delhi Municipal Corporation (1997) 7 SCC 339 makes it clear as crystal that all Union
     Territories under our constitutional scheme are not on the same pedestal and as far as the NCT of Delhi is
     concerned, it is not a State within the meaning of Article 246 or Part-VI of the Constitution. Though the
     NCT of Delhi partakes a unique position after the Sixty-Ninth Amendment, yet in sum and substance, it
     remains a Union Territory which is governed by Article 246(4) of the Constitution and to which the
     Parliament, in the exercise of its constituent power, has given the appellation of the ‘National Capital
     Territory of Delhi’.
     
     204. Drawing an analogy while interpreting the provisions of Article 239AA(3)(a) and Article 239AA(4)
     would reveal that the executive power of the Government of NCT of Delhi is conterminous 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.
     
     207. At the outset, we must declare that the insertion of Articles 239AA and 239AB which specifically
     pertain to NCT of Delhi is reflective of the intention of the Parliament to accord Delhi a sui generis status
     from the other Union Territories as well as from the Union Territory of Puducherry to which Article 239A
     is singularly applicable as on date. The same has been authoritatively held by the majority judgment in the
     New Delhi Municipal Corporation case to the effect that the NCT of Delhi is a class by itself.
     
     209. 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.
     
     284. 12. In the light of the ruling of the nine-Judge Bench in New Delhi Municipal Corporation (supra), it
     is clear as noonday that by no stretch of imagination, NCT of Delhi can be accorded the status of a State
     under our present constitutional scheme. The status of NCT of Delhi is sui generis, a class apart, and the
     status of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State, rather he remains an
     Administrator, in a limited sense, working with the designation of Lieutenant Governor.
     
     284. 13. With the insertion of Article 239AA by virtue of the Sixty-ninth Amendment, the Parliament
     envisaged a representative form of Government for the NCT of Delhi. The said provision intends to provide
     for the Capital a directly elected Legislative Assembly which shall have legislative powers over matters
     falling within the State List and the Concurrent List, barring those excepted, and a mandate upon the
     Lieutenant Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except when he decides to
     refer the matter to the President for final decision.
     
     284. 17. The meaning of ‘aid and advise’ employed in Article 239AA(4) has to be construed to mean that
     the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and
     this position holds true so long as the Lieutenant Governor does not exercise his power under the proviso
     to Clause (4) of Article 239AA. The Lieutenant Governor has not been entrusted with any independent
     decision-making 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.
     
     284. 21. The scheme that has been conceptualized by the insertion of Articles 239AA and 239AB read with
     the provisions of the GNCTD Act, 1991 and the corresponding TBR, 1993 indicates that the Lieutenant
     Governor, being the Administrative head, shall be kept informed with respect to all the decisions taken by
     the Council of Ministers. The terminology “send a copy thereof to the Lieutenant Governor”, “forwarded
     to the Lieutenant Governor”, “submitted to the Lieutenant Governor” and “cause

to be furnished to the Lieutenant Governor” employed in the said Rules leads to the only possible conclusion
that the decisions of the Council of Ministers must be communicated to the Lieutenant Governor but this
does not mean that the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor is required. The said communication is
imperative so as to keep him apprised in order to enable him to exercise the power conferred upon him
Under Article 239AA(4) and the proviso thereof.
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. (Concurring) – 398. Part IV of the GNCTD Act has inter alia made
provisions for matters which lie in the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor, the conduct of business, and
the duty of the Chief Minister to communicate with and share information with the Lieutenant Governor.
Section 41 provides thus:
Section 41. Matters in which Lieutenant Governor to act in his discretion:
(1) The Lieutenant Governor shall act in his discretion in a matter-
(i) which falls outside the purview of the powers conferred on the Legislative Assembly but
in respect of which powers or functions are entrusted or delegated to him by the President;
or
(ii) in which he is required by or under any law to act in his discretion or to exercise any
judicial functions.
(2) If any question arises as to whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects with the
Lieutenant Governor is by or under any law required to act in his discretion, the decision of the
Lieutenant Governor thereon shall be final.
(3) If any question arises as to whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the
Lieutenant Governor is by or under any law required by any law to exercise any judicial or quasijudicial functions, the decision of the Lieutenant Governor thereon shall be final.

399. The Lieutenant Governor acts in his discretion in two classes of matters. The first consists of those
     which are outside the powers conferred upon the legislative assembly but in respect of which the President
     has delegated powers and functions to the Lieutenant Governor. The second category consists of those
     matters where the Lieutenant Governor is required to act in his discretion by or under any law or under
     which he exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Matters falling within the ambit of Section 41 lie
     outside the realm of the aid and advice mandate. Where a subject or matter lies outside the purview of the
     legislative assembly, it necessarily lies outside the executive powers of the government of the NCT. Such
     matters stand excepted from the ambit of the aid and advice which is tendered by the Council of Ministers
     to the Lieutenant Governor.
     
     467. For the purpose of the present discourse, it is necessary to emphasize the value which the Constitution
     places on cooperative governance, within the federal structure (Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution:
     Cornerstone of a Nation, at p.232). An illustration is to be found in Chapter II of Part XI which deals with
     the administrative relations between the Union and the States. Under Article 256, an obligation has been
     cast upon every state to ensure that its executive power is exercised to secure compliance with laws enacted
     by Parliament. The executive power of the Union extends to issuing directions to a State as are necessary,
     for that purpose. Article 257 contains a mandate that in exercising its executive power, a State shall not
     impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union. The constitutional vision of
     cooperative governance is enhanced by the provision made in Article 258 under which the President may,
     with the consent of a State, entrust to it or to its officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the
     power of the Union extends. Similarly, even on matters on which a State legislature has no power to make
     laws, Parliament may confer powers and impose duties on the officers of the State. Article 261 provides
     that full faith and credit must be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial
     proceedings of the Union and of every State. Without determining (it being unnecessary for the present
     discussion) the extent to which these provisions apply to a Union territory, the purpose of emphasizing the
     principles which emerge from the chapter on administrative relations is to highlight the necessity for
     cooperative governance between different levels of government, in a Constitution, such as ours, which
     contains an elaborate distribution of power between political entities and institutions. The construction
     which the Court places on the proviso to Article

239AA(4) must facilitate mutual cooperation so that the affairs of state are carried out without dislocations
occasioned by differences of perception. Differences between political arms of the state are natural to a
democratic way of life. The strength inherent in differences is that the Constitution provides a platform for
the robust expression of views, accommodates differences of ideology and acknowledgesthat the
resilience, and not the weakness of the nation lies in the plurality of her cultures and the diversity of her
opinions. The working of a democratic Constitution depends as much on the wisdom and statesmanship of
those in charge of governing the affairs of the nation as much as it relies on the languageof the Constitution
defining their powers and duties.

468. The proviso to Article 239AA(4) must be operated and applied in a manner which facilitates and does
     not obstruct the governance of the NCT. If the expression ‘any matter’ were to be construed as ‘every matter’
     or every trifling matter that would result in bringing to a standstill the administration of the affairs of the
     NCT. Every conceivable difference would be referred to the President. The elected representatives would
     be reduced to a cipher. The Union government would govern the day to day affairs. The forms of the
     Constitution would remain but the substance would be lost. Article 239AA has been introduced as a result
     of the exercise of the constituent power. The purpose of the exercise is to confer a special status on the
     National Capital Territory. The arrangements for administering the affairs of Delhi are constitutionally
     entrenched as a result of the Sixty-Ninth amendment. Whether there should be a Council of Ministers or a
     Legislature (or both) was not left to determination in an Act of Parliament. The Constitution mandates
     that both must exist in the NCT. The Constitution mandates direct elections to the Legislature. It obligates
     the existence of a Council of Ministers which owes collective responsibility to the Legislature. It demarcates
     the area of legislative and executive power. The Lieutenant Governor, as the substantive part of Article
     239AA(4) stipulates, is to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. In adopting these provisions,
     the Constitution incorporates the essentials of the cabinet form of government. Was this to have no
     meaning? A constitutional court must be averse to accepting an interpretation which will reduce these
     aspirations of governance to a mere form, without the accompanying substance. The Court must take into
     consideration constitutional morality, which is a guiding spirit for all stakeholders in a democracy.
469. In discharging his constitutional role, the Lieutenant Governor has to be conscious of the fact that the
     Council of Ministers which tenders aid and advice is elected to serve the people and represents both the
     aspirations and responsibilities of democracy. Neither the Constitution nor the enabling legislation, which
     we have noticed earlier, contemplate that every decision of the executive government must receive the prior
     concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor before it can be implemented.
470. The interpretation of the proviso must be cognizant of the constitutional position that though Delhi
     has a special status, it continues to be a Union territory governed by Part VIII. There are takeaways from
     the first line of interpretation which have significance. Within the rubric of Union territories, as the ninejudge Bench decision in NDMC noticed, different Union territories are in varying stages of evolution. Some
     of the erstwhile Union territories such as Goa attained full statehood and ceased to be Union territories.
     Some may not have a legislature. Some may have a Legislature under an enactment of Parliament. Delhi
     has a special position in that both its Legislature as well as Council of Ministers have a constitutionally
     recognized status. The conferment of this status by a constitutional amendment enhances the position of its
     arms of governance within Union territories without conferring statehood. Delhi is administered by the
     President Under Article 239 acting through an Administrator who is designated as a Lieutenant Governor
     Under Article 239AA(1). The language of the opening words of Article 239(1) mustbe read in harmony
     with Article 239AA. In terms of the reach of its legislative powers, the legislative assembly for the NCT
     does not exercise exclusive jurisdiction over State List subjects. Parliament has legislative authority (in
     addition to the Union List), both in regard to the State and Concurrent Lists for NCT. Hence legislation by
     the legislative assembly, even on matters which fall within its legislative domain is subject to the overriding
     power of Parliament. The principle of repugnancy which Article 254 recognises between Union and State
     legislation on matters in the Concurrent List is extended by Article 239AA [3(b) and 3 (c)], both with
     reference to State and Concurrent List subjects for NCT. Moreover,

certain subjects have been expressly carved out from the ambit of the legislative authority of the legislative
assembly and vested exclusively in Parliament. Executive powers of the Government of NCT being coextensive with legislative powers, the aid and advice which is tendered to the Lieutenant Governor by the
Council of Ministers is confined to those areas which do not lie outside the purview of legislative powers.
These provisions demonstrate that while adopting the institutions of a cabinet form of government, the
Constitution has, for NCT, curtailed the ambit of the legislative and executive power, consistent with its
status as a Union territory.

471. The exercise of the constituent power to introduce Article 239AA was cognizant of the necessity to
     protect national interests inherent in the governance of a national capital. A sense of permanence and
     stability was sought to be attributed to the arrangements made for governing Delhi by bringing in a
     constitutional amendment. Both in terms of the reach of the legislative power, as well as in relation to the
     exercise of executive power, the special constitutional arrangementsfor Delhi recognise that the governance
     of Delhi implicates a sense of national interest. When matters of national interest arise, they would predicate
     a predominant role for institutions of national governance.
472. Consistent with the need to preserve national interest, it would not be appropriate to restrict the ambit
     of the proviso to Article 239AA(4) to situations where the action of the government is ultra viresthe
     limits of its executive powers. This becomes evident on a construction of the provisions of Section 41 (1)(i)
     and Section 44(1)(a) of the GNCTD Act. Sub-clause(i) of Section 41(1) enables the Lieutenant Governor
     to act in his discretion on a matter which falls outside the purview of the powers conferred on the legislative
     assembly but in respect of which powers or functions are entrusted or delegated to him by the President.
     Under Section 44(1)(a), Rules of Business are made on matters on which the Lieutenant Governor is
     required to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Section 44(1)(a) covers business which is
     not a part of Section 41(1)(i). This is because matters which fall within Section 44(1)(i) are not governed
     by the principle of aid and advice.
473. There is much to be said for not laying down an exhaustive catalogue of situations to which the proviso
     applies. Governance involves complexities. In the very nature of things, it would not be possible for a Court
     delivering judgment in the context of the problems of the day to anticipate situations which may arise in
     future. It would be unsafe to confine a constitutional provision to stated categories whichmay affect the
     resilience of the Constitution to deal with unforeseen situations. Some of the illustrations which may
     warrant the exercise of the power under the proviso may shed light on the purpose of the proviso and the
     object which it seeks to achieve.
     
     475.19. Before the Lieutenant Governor decides to make a reference to the President under the proviso to
     Article 239AA(4), the course of action mandated in the Transaction of Business Rules must be followed.
     The Lieutenant Governor must, by a process of dialogue and discussion, seek to resolve any difference of
     opinion with a Minister and if it is not possible to have it so resolved to attempt it through the Council of
     Ministers. A reference to the President is contemplated by the Rules only when the above modalities fail to
     yield a solution, when the matter may be escalated to the President;
     
     475.20. In a cabinet form of government, the substantive power of decision making vests in the Council
     of Ministers with the Chief Minister as its head. The aid and advice provision contained in the substantive
     part of Article 239AA(4) recognizes this principle. When the Lieutenant Governor acts on the basis of the
     aid and advise of the Council of Ministers, this recognizes that real decision-making authority in a
     democratic form of government vests in the executive. Even when the Lieutenant Governor makes a
     reference to the President under the terms of the proviso, he has to abide by the decision which is arrived
     at by the President. The Lieutenant Governor has, however, been authorized to take immediate action in the
     meantime where emergent circumstances so require. The provisions of Article 239AA(4) indicate that the
     Lieutenant Governor must either act on the basis of aid and advice or, where he has reason to refer the
     matter to the President, abide by the decision communicated by the President. There is no independent
     authority vested in Lieutenant Governor to take decisions (save and except on matters where he exercises

his discretion as a judicial or quasi-judicial authority under any law or has been entrusted with powers by
the President Under Article 239 on matters which lie outside the competence of the Government of NCT);
and
475.21. The proviso to Article 239AA is in the nature of a protector to safeguard the interests of the
Union on matters of national interest in relation to the affairs of the National Capital Territory. Every trivial
difference does not fall under the proviso. The proviso will, among other things, encompass substantial
issues of finance and policy which impact upon the status of the national capital or implicate vital interests
of the Union. Given the complexities of administration, and the unforeseen situations whichmay occur in
future, it would not be possible for the court in the exercise of judicial review to exhaustively indicate the
circumstances warranting recourse to the proviso. In deciding as to whether the proviso should be invoked
the Lieutenant Governor shall abide by the principles which have beenindicated in the body of this
judgment.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. (Concurring) – 576. It is well settled that the Governor is to act on aid and advice
of the Council of Ministers and as contemplated Under Article 163, according to the Constitutionalscheme,
Governor is not free to disregard the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except when he isrequired
to exercise his function in his discretion. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down by
this Court in Shamsher Singh (supra) and followed thereafter in number of cases. Whether the “aid and
advice” as used in Article 239AA(4) has to be given the same meaning as is contained in Article 163 and
Article 74 is the question to be answered. The Appellant’s case is that Constitution scheme as delineated in
Article 239AA itself having accepted Westminster model of Governing system, “aid and advice” of the
Council of Ministers is binding on the LG and he cannot act contrary to the aid and advice and is bound to
follow the aid and advice. It is submitted that any other interpretation shall run contrary tothe very concept
of Parliamentary democracy, which is basic feature of the Constitution. There could have been no second
opinion had the proviso to clause (4) of Article 239AA was not there. The aid and advice as given by
Council of Ministers as referred to in Sub-clause(4) has to be followed by the Lieutenant Governor unless
he decides to exercise his power given in proviso of Sub-clause(4) of Article 239AA. The proviso is an
exception to the power as given in clause (4). A case when falls within the proviso, the “aid and advice” of
the Council of Ministers as contemplated under Sub-clause (4) is not tobe adhered to and a reference can
be made by Lieutenant Governor. This is an express Constitution scheme, which is delineated by clause (4)
of Article 239AA proviso. It is relevant to note that the scheme which is reflected by clause (4) of Article
239AA proviso is the same scheme which is contained Under Section 44 of the Government of Union
Territories Act, 1963.

582. From the above discussions, it is thus clear that aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is binding
     on the Lieutenant Governor except when he decides to exercise his power given in proviso of clause(4) of
     Article 239AA. In the matters, where power under Proviso has not been exercised, aid and advice of the
     Council of Ministers is binding on the Lieutenant Governor. We are of the view that proviso to clause(4)
     of Article 239AA cannot be given any other interpretation relying on any principle of Parliamentary
     democracy or any system of Government or any principle of Constitutional silence or implications.
     
     604.6. The “aid and advice” given by Council of Ministers as referred to in clause (4) of Article 239AA is
     binding on the LG unless he decides to exercise his power given in proviso to clause (2) of Article 239AA.
     
     604.8. The power given in proviso to clause (4) to LG is not to be exercised in a routine manner rather it
     is to be exercised by the LG on valid reasons after due consideration, when it becomes necessary to
     safeguard the interest of the Union Territory.