Holding

The notification dividing the National Capital Territory of Delhi into nine civil districts under Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, as extended to Delhi, is valid and cannot be set aside.

Summary

The Delhi Bar Association challenged a notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi that divided the territory into nine civil districts, alleging that the Lt. Governor lacked authority and that the decision was a policy matter not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional framework, noting that the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (Section 19) was extended to Delhi and that the Lt. Governor, as the Administrator of the NCT, could exercise discretionary powers under that Act. The Court held that the decision to bifurcate Delhi was taken after extensive consultation with the High Court, the Chief Secretary and the Law Minister, and therefore was not arbitrary. It further ruled that the Punjab Courts Act, being a central law, prevails over any Delhi legislation and that the notification does not alter court jurisdiction, merely delineating civil districts. Consequently, the notification was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The constitutional competence of the Lieutenant Governor to issue a notification dividing Delhi into civil districts under Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
Whether the policy decision to create nine judicial districts is amenable to judicial review.
The relationship between the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, and the hierarchy of central and Delhi legislation.
Whether the notification infringes upon the Legislative Assembly’s power under Article 239AA to legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, particularly Entry 11A (administration of justice).

Legislation cited

Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899s. Sa
Constitution of Indias. 239, s. 239AA, s. 246, s. 258A
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 3
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991s. 41
Punjab Courts Act, 1918s. 19

Subjects

DelhiCivil districtsPunjab Courts ActArticle 239AAJudicial reviewPolicy decisionAdministrative lawNotification validityNCT of Delhi

Judgment

·- 12ooara-s--:-c.R-:-a9a
't"
A DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION
v. l
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 437 of 2000}
MAY 15, 2008
E?
· [B.N. AGRAWAL, P.P. NAOLEKAR AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.]
-4~
Punjab Courts Act, 1918; S.19/Government of National
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
courts - It falls under the discretionary powers of the Lt. Gov-
G
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. 741/1989 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 to certain salient features before creation of
judicial districts; and that in thE' absence of executive or
administrative order to bifurcate Delhi into nine judicial
districts, this Court by its order dated 1.5.2000 erroneously
directed the High Court of Delhi peremptorily to convene
a meeting and fix a time schedule for bifurcation of Delhi
0
into nine judicial districts. ,.
It was submitted on behalf of the Delhi High Court
that the decision taken by the authorities to create nine
districts and issuance of the notification in connection
E thereof has been arrived at after due consideration of all
relevant aspects;
On behalf of NCT of Delhi, it was submitted that the
decision taken for bifurcation of Delhi into nine districts
was a policy decision after elaborate consultation be-
F tween the Chief Secretary, the Law Minister and the Chief
Justice of Delhi High Court; that the Government is the
best judge to determine the choice of and to formulate
policy; that the policy matters are best left for the execu-
tive/legislatures as normally it is in their domain; that the
G court would not interfere and strike down a policy matter
which is beneficial to the public at large; that the policy
decision which is in public interest for the consumers of
justice, who are paramount recipients of justice delivery
system, cannot be faulted with on the basis of some ir-
H regularities and normally the policy decisions taken by
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 901
INDIA& ORS.

the authorities after due deliberation and taking into con- A
sideration all relevant aspects would not be subject to
judicial review; that the matters of Government policy are
best left to the Government to decide; and that the policy
decision taken is the result of prolonged threadbare dis-
cussion and application of mind to the rele~ant aspects B
and is not open to challenge.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Government of India, the High Court
and the Delhi Government were considering the reorga- c
nization of courts since 1979. Vide communication dated
26.3.1982, the Government of India conveyed its agree-
ment to divide Delhi into separate districts. The High Court
throughout has been insisting on the division of Delhi into
separate judicial districts. By communication dated
0
31.1.1991 from the then Union Law Minister to the then
Chief Justice, his attention wc.s drawn to the views ex-
pressed by the Lt. Governor that Delhi be divided into
separate judicial districts. On 6.7.1993, the Government
of India sought the views of the Chief Secretary, Delhi
Government on the division of Delhi into nine judicial dis- E
tricts. Before the decision was taken, various details in
this regard were considered at different times. The Delhi
) Government has been consistently insisting on the divi-
sion of Delhi into nine judicial districts. In a meeting be-
tween the Chief Justice and the Lt. Governor held on F
31.08.1999, in principle it was agreed to divide Delhi into
nine judicial districts. A Committee was constituted to, in-
ter alia, work out the modalities and study and advise on
the notifications that may be required to be issued and
the amendments that may be required in any Act and in G
any existing notifications. The Committee submitted its
report on 03.04.2000. The entire matter was placed before
the Full Court in its meeting held on 26.4.2000 and the
Full Court after considering the relevant aspects and the
report of the Committee dated 03.04.2000 approved the H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A bifurcation of Delhi into nine judicial districts and directed
necessary follow-up action to be taken as recommended
by the Committee. The need of bifurcation has been
stressed upon and very succinctly dealt with in the order
of this Court dated 01.05.2000 passed in WP(C) No. 741
B of 1989 in the matter of Delhi Judicial Service (Regd.) v.
Union of India and Others,. It is apparent that before the
decision was taken, all authorities for arriving at the policy 1
decision were consulted ar:d thus it cannot be said that
the policy decision taken by the Government was arbi-
C trary or without consideration of the relevant material.
[Paras 36 and 37] [922-F-H; 923-A-D; 924-F-G]
Delhi Judicial Service Association (Regd.) v. Union of
India through the Secretary and Others, (2000) 9 SCC 562)
relied on.
D
1.2. The policy decision taken by the Government can-
not be faulted with unless it suffers from unreasonable-
ness, arbitrariness or unfairness or it is beyond the legis-
lative powers of the State or is beyond the constit..itional
limits~ In the present case, not only the policy decision
E taken by the NCT of Delhi is founded on prolonged and
in-depth deliberation between the NCT of Delhi, the Lt.
Governor and the Delhi High Court which is directly con-
cerned with the division of Delhi into judicial districts, but
is also a result of directions issued by this Court by its
F order dated 01.05.2000. [Para 39) [927-8-C)
State of Maharashtra and Another v. Lok Shikshan
Sanstha ah(J Others, (1971) 2 SCC 410; M.P Oil Extraction
and Another v. State of M.P and Others, (1997) 7 sec 592,
G Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Others,
(2001) 3 SCC 635 and Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State
of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 8 sec 418 - relied on.
1.3 This Court by giving directions by its order dated
01.05.2000, did not exceed its jurisdiction and did not en-
H croach upon the essentially executive or legislative tune-
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 903
INDIA & ORS.

tion of different authorities. [Para 41] [928-G] A
All India Judges' Association v. Union of lnd~a and Oth-
ers, (1992) 1 SCC 119, All India Judges' Association and Oth-
ers v. Union of India and Others (1993) 4 sec 288 All India
Judges' Association and Others v. Union of India and Others,
(2002) 4 sec 247 - relied on. B
2.1 By virtue of Section 5a of the Bengal General
Clauses Act, 1899, the definition of 'State Government',
that is applicable to the State of Delhi, is the definition
under the General Clauses Act, 1897. [Para - 42] [929-A- c
C]
2.2 Delhi is a Union Territory and after introduction
of Article 239AA in the Constitution, the Union Territory of
Delhi is called the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Ev-
ery Union Territory is administered by the President act- D
ing to such extent as it thinks fit through an Administrator
to be appointed by him. The Lt. Governor has been ap-
pointed a$ an Admi.nistrator to administer the National
Capital Territory of Delhi. Under this Article, it has been
provided that there shall be a Legislative.Assembly for E
the National Capital Territory. After the introduction of this
Article, the National Capital Territory of Delhi has been
administered by the President through the Administrator
appointed under Article 239 of the Constitution. Thus, the
Lt. Governor is the Administrator for the National Capital F
Territory of Delhi and shall be representing and autho-
rized to act for and on behalf of the National Capital Terri-
tory of Delhi. After the introduction of this Article, the Ben-
gal General Clauses Act, 1899 would not have any appli-
cation as the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 has been made ap- G
plicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Thus,
the State in Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act shall be
read as the National Capital Territory of Delhi which is rep-
resented and administered by the Lt. Governor who has
been empowered to issue a notification on behalf of the H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

l"
A National Capital Territory of Delhi to divide the territory
under his administration into civil districts. The Lt. Gov-
ernor of lilelhi being the representative of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi was competent to divide the ter-
ritory of Delhi under his administration into civil districts.
8 [Para 45] [931-E-H; 932-A-B]
2.3 From the introduction of Article 239AA in the Con-
~
stitution, the Legislative Assembly of ttie National Capital Ter-
ritory has authority to make laws in regard to the Entries in ""
the State List or in the Concurrent List except Entries 1, 2
c and 18 and the matters enumerated in Entries 64, 65 and 66
so far as they relate tn the said Entries. Under clause (4) of
Article 239AA, there shall be a Council of Ministers with the
Chief Minister at the head who shall aid and advise the Lieu-
tenant Governor to exercise his functions in relation to mat-
D ters which fall within the ambit of the Legislative Assembly ,.
to make laws except the functions whkh are required to be
undertaken under any law by the Lt. Governor exercising
his own discretion. [Para 46) [933-G-H; 934-A-D]
2.4. Administration of justice and constitution of
•
E courts is provided under Entry 11A of the Concurrent List
and this is a matter also under the jurisdiction of the Leg-
islative Assembly upon which the Assembly is competent
to make laws. [Para 47] [934-D-E] v
F 3.1. A plain reading of the impugned notification
makes it absolutely clear that the import of the notifica-
tion is to divide the National Capital Territory of Delhi into
nine civil districts. The notification neither defines, en-
larges, alters, amends or diminishes the jurisdiction of the
courts which are in existence nor has impinged upon the
G -<I
existing courts' territory or pecuniary jurisdiction. The iii
notification simply divides Delhi into nine civil districts.
Therefore, the notification merely deals with and is con-
fined to geographical division of the district boundaries
and nowhere deals with jurisdiction of the courts or de-
H
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 905
INDIA & ORS.

fines the courts' jurisdiction territorially or pecuniarily. The A
impugned notification covers the subject, namely, division
of the territory of U. T. of Delhi under its administration into
civil districts. The impugned notification does not cover
the subject under Entry 11A of the Concurrent List,
namely, administration of justice, constitution and orga- B
nization of all courts except the Supreme Court and the
High Court. The powers exercised by the Lt. Governor
are referable to Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
The impugned notification would fall under the discretion-
ary powers of the Lt. Governor un.der Section 41 of the C
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991.
[Para 50] [936-E-H; 937-A-C]
The State of Bombay vs. Narottamdas Jethabhai and
Another, AIR 1951 SC 69 - relied on.
3.2 The enforcement of the Government of National D
Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 from 01.02.1992 does
not hinder the continuing application of the Punjab Courts
Act, 1918 to Delhi. The Notification issued on 28.6.2000
itself mentions that 1918 Act is being extended to the Na-
tional Capital Territory of Delhi and none of the parties to E
the present petition have denied this position. The 1918
Act has been extended to the National Capital Territory of
Delhi and there is no notification, order or legislation
-Y brought to notice of this Court whereby application of
the 1918 Act to the National Capital Territory of Delhi has F
been repealed or curtailed. Therefore, in the absence of
any provision in the Government of National Capital Ter-
ritory of Delhi Act or in the absence of any other notifica-
tion, order or legislation, 1918 Act, has continuous appli-
cation to Delhi along with the laws made by the Delhi Leg- G
'" islative Assembly. [Para 51] [937-E-G]
3.3 The territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court
includes the territory of U.T. of Delhi. All original, appellate
and other jurisdictions which had been exercised in regard H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
'f
A to this territory by the High Court of Punjab shall be exer-
cised by the High Court of Delhi. The 1918 Act, though only
extended to Delhi, has the status of a central legislation
directly en~cted for Delhi. When a provincial Act or an Act
which may be treated as a provincial Act was extended to
B the territory by a legislature, it would be deemed to be the
enactment of such legislature. [Para 51] [937-H; 938-A-B]
~
Mithan Lal etc. vs. State of Delhi; AIR 1958 SC 682 -
relied on.

c 3.4 It is, clear that after the extension of 1918 Act, to
the U.T. of Delhi, it b.)comes a Central Act or an Act of Par- .
liament as it is made by virtue of powers of Parliament to
legislate for the U.T. of Delhi by virtue of clause (4) of Ar-
•
D
ticle 246 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the 1918
Act assumes the position of central legislation enacted
specifically for Delhi and is the law operative in the NCT of ~
•I

Delhi. Hemce, the notification issued by the Lt. Governor •
I-
under Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 has been
authorized by a central legislation. Further, any legislation
passed by the State Legislative Assembly is always sub-
E ordinate to the laws of Parliament. [Para 51] [938-C-E]

3.5 From the constitutional provisions u/Article 239AA
3(b)& c, it is clear that in the NCT of Delhi the laws made
'(
by the Delhi Legislative Assembly are always subordinate
F to the laws of Parliament whether prior or post in time.
[Para 51] [939-A]
New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab and 0th-
ers, (1997) 7 sec 339 - relied on.

G 3.6 The power to legislate to the Legislative Assem-
bly of Delhi shall not supersede the powers of Parliament
~
.,,
to make laws with respect to any matter for Union Terri-
tory or any part thereof. If any provision made by the Leg-
islative Assembly with respect to any matter is repugnant
to any provision of a law made by Parliament with respect
H
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 907
INDIA & ORS.
'Y
to that matter, whether passed before or after the law made A
by the Legislative Assembly, or of an earlier law, other than
a law made by the Legislative Assembly, then, in either
case the law made by Parliament or such earlier law shall
prevail and the law made by the Legislative Assembly
shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void. The 1918 Act, B
being the central legislation, will have the primacy over
any legislation made by the Delhi Legislative Assembly
on the subject and even if the Delhi Legislative Assembly
has a power to make law on the subject which is covered
under the impugned Notification, Section 19 of the, 1918 c
Act shall prevail on the subject and a Notification issued
thereunder shall not be invalidated merely because the
subject matter also falls within the Concurrent List. Hence,
the Notification issued by the Lt. Governor dividing Delhi
into nine civil districts was valid. [Paras - 52 & 53] [940-B-F]
D
.... CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civi!) No.
437 of 2000
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
WITH E

:
W.P. (C) Nos. 451 of 2000, 741 of 1989 and Transferred
Case (C) No. 38 of 1996
A. Sharan, A.S.G., P.H. Parekh, Arun Jaitely, Ranjit Kumar,
f' ~
" P.P. Rao, Anis Suhrawardy, E.R. Kumar, Ved Prakash Sharma, F
R.N. Vats, Ajay Kumar Jha, Mary Mitzy, Arjun Garg, Nitin Thukral,
Kush Chuturvedi, Pallavi Srivastava, Shamama Anis, Syed
Mehdi Lmam, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Kamal Gupta, Jana
Kalyan Das, Tara Chandra Sharma, Kishan Datta, Neelam
Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Amit Anand Tiwari, Vikas Sharma, G
,. Rekha Pandey, D.S. Mahra, P. Parmeswaran, Shreekant N.
Terdal (for Anil katiyar), D.N. Goburdhan, Pinky Anand, Geeta ;
Luthra, A Mariarputham, Arun Mathur (for M/sArputham, Aruna
& Co.), Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Subhash C. Gulati, Jagdeep Vats,
N.S. Gahlot, Raj Singh Rana, Pramod Nagar, S.R. Raghav, R.K.
H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

'f'
A Jain, Mahesh Chand Sharma, Jai Singh Kunwar, A. Subhashini,
Nanita Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Vijay Panjwani, V:S.
Sharya, M/s Sharya & Co. Vikas Mehta and B.B. Singh for the
Appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. 1. The Delhi High Court was consti-
tuted in 1966 . .Even after the constitution of the Delhi High Court,
the region of Delhi had only one district civil court and one ses-
sion court. Over the years, with growth in the population of the
c city, the amount of litigation has seen a constant upward spiral.
The very high volume of litigation both on the civil side and on
the criminal side has led to a huge backlog of cases and great
delays in dispensation of justice, putting the common man and
the layman-litigant to great inconvenience.
D 2. This rather dismal state of affairs in the Delhi courts has
not gone unnoticed and at various stages, suggestions and re-
quests have been made to the Union Government for division
otJhe region of Delhi into smaller judicial districts with civil and
criminal courts in each district to handle the volume of litigation,
E to help reduce the backlog of cases and to dispense justice
with greater efficacy. The steps taken in this direction will be
discussed in greater detail in the latter section of facts.
3. There have been a few petitions on the question of back- '(
log of cases and delay in dispensation of justice. The case
F filed by the Delhi Judicial Service Association [WP(C) No.741
of 1989], among others, prayed this Court to direct the Delhi
Government for creating additional posts in the Delhi Judicial
Service. This Court, while passing orders in that matter, directed
the Delhi High Court to form a Committee under its aegis, which
G would look: into the feasibility of division of Delhi into smaller -4
judicial districts. On the basis of the report prepared by the Com-
mittee, this Court passed an order on 01.05.2000 directing the
Delhi Government to take concrete steps towards the creation of
judicial districts and further directed the Delhi High Court to ap-
H point two of its Judges to oversee the process of implementation.
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 909
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
"J
4. In pursuance of this order, the Delhi Government, through A
the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, is-
sued a notification in the Official Gazette dated 28.06.2000
under the provisions of Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act,
1918 as extended to the region of Delhi.

5. The instant WP(C) No.437 of 2000 has been filed by B
the Delhi Bar Association, claiming to be the largest associa-
~ tion of its nature in the country, questionihg the propriety of such·
notification and issuance thereof by the Lt. Governor without it
being deliberated upon by the Legislative Assembly of Delhi,
and thereby questioning the validity of its operation. c
6. The facts and the chronology of events leading up to the
first WP(C) No. 741 of 1989 (Delhi Judicial Service Associa- .
tion vs. Union of India & Ors.) and the facts leading up to the
second Writ Petition in WP(C) No. 437 of 2000 are as follows.
D
7. WP(C) No.741of1989 was filed by the Delhi Judicial
Service Association praying the court to issue a mandamus
directing the Government to increase the number of available
posts in Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Ser-
vice, to stre'amline the process of filling up of any vacancies. in E
the posts and to conduct the whole process with greater trans-
parency. While hearing the petition, a number of orders were ·
passed by this.Court at various instances on matters relating to
"I
creation of posts and criterion for promotion.
~
8. During the pendency of the petitions, there were delib- F
erations at various levels between the Delhi High Court, the Union
Government and the Delhi Administration regarding the possi-
bility of division of Delhi into smaller judicial districts and the
constitution of courts in these districts. Since there was a con-
nection between the question of division of Delhi into smaller G
......
~ )-
judicial districts and the issues that were being heard in WP(C)
No.741 of 1989, the Delhi High Court, which was one of the
respondents in the petition, considered it fit to file an additional
affiqavit on its behalf bringing to light the deliberation on divi-
sion of Delhi into smaller judicial districts. The chronology of H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
\

A events leading up to the additional affidavit being filed is enu- T'
merated below.
9. There had been attempts towards the division of Delhi
info smaller constituent judicial districts. Characteristics of such
an expectation are contained in the letter dated 21.05.1979 sent
B by the then Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to the Union Law
Minister requesting some official action towards the division of
Delhi into five judicial districts. The letter says that historically 1
Delhi has been one civil district for the purposes of Civil work
and one sessions division for criminal work as once upon a
c time Delhi was the district of Punjab. Even after Delhi became
a Union Territory, it continued to be so till the High Court was
constituted in 1966. Initially there used to be only one District &
Sessions Judge with one or two Additional and a few Sub
Judges. With increase in the population of Delhi and conse-
D quent litigation, there has been a tremendous increase in the
number of judicial officers dealing with civil and criminal cases.
Administratively as well as judicially, one District & Sessions
Judge cannot effectively control such large number of judicial
officers. Therefore, it was suggested that in view of the enor-
E mous amount of litigation pending in Delhi, the Union Territory
·~
should be divided into five districts on the analogy of its division
into five areas for police administration. Just as there is Super-
intendent of Police for each police district, there should.be Dis-
trict & Sessions Judge for each civil district and sessions divi- y
F sion. This should be called Central, East, West, North and South. ' 'H
The benefits of such re-organisation were said to be obvious. "
First, it will bring courts nearer to the place where the litigants
reside or the cause of action arises. Secondly, it will allow the
Bar of these five areas to locate themselves near the courts.
Thirdly, it will redress the great injustice that is caused to the
G
Delhi Judicial Service and the Delhi Higher Judicial Service by
denying them the normal higher judicial posts which would have "' ~
'"r·'

been available if they are divided into several districts in the
State.
H 10. Vide letter dated 26.03.1982, the Union Government

lrJ·
:lJ,;
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 911
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

intimated the High Court of Delhi and the Delhi Administration A
of its agreement to the possibility of dividing Delhi into five judi-
cial districts for the purposes of effective administration of jus-
tice. In pursuance of this communique, the then Chief Justice of
Delhi High Court constituted a Committee to look into the mo-
dalities for implementation of such a scheme. This move to- B
wards division of Delhi into five judicial districts and the possi-
~
bility of streamlining of the judicial set-up in the Delhi region
was put on the back- burner when the Union Law Minister inti-
mated the Delhi High Court vide his letter dated 05.10.1984
that the Government of India was not in favour of division of Delhi
into judicial districts.
c
11. A few years later, the Delhi High Court reiterating the
importance of the move to divide Delhi into smaller judicial dis-
tricts, sent a letter dated 09.04.1990 through Registrar ad-
dressed to the Government of India conveying the desire of the D
then Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court to impress
upon that the decision of the Government of India conveyed vide
letter dated 26.03.1982 in respect of division of Delhi into five
districts may be implemented at the earliest as recommended
by the Delhi High Court vide its letter dated 21.05.1979. E
12. On 07.05.1990, the Union Law Minister intimated the
Delhi High Court of the decision of the Union Government not to
go ahead with any move towards bifurcation of Delhi into any
~
~ smaller judicial districts due to protest and prolonged agitation
by lawyers. However, the letter also informed the High Court F
that it may after consultation with the Bar Council of Delhi and
various Bar Associations that have a stake in the matter, send
a proposal for division of Delhi into smaller districts, if neces-
sary, to the Government for reconsidering their decision.
G
~ 13. By communication dated 31.01.1991 from the then
Union Law Minister to the then Chief Justice, his attention was
drawn to the views expressed by the Lt. Governor that Delhi be
divided into separate judicial districts.

14. On 12.04.1991, the Delhi High Court informed the Union H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R.

A Law Minister, after a Full Court meeting on 06.04.1991 .. that
they were of the opinion that no further consultation with the Bar
· Associations was necessary and reiterated their stance on the
division of Delhi into five judicial districts and recomme.nded
that the same be done at the earliest possible time as it has
B already been recommended by the High Court vide letters
dated 21.05.~979 and 09.04.1990.

15. In the meantime, the Government of India sent a letter
dated 17.10.1991 wherein it was suggested that effective de-
centralization of the courts could be done through creating in-
c dependent courts in various parts of Delhi without actually con-
stituting separate districts. The High Court conveyed to the
Union government its opinion on the new proposal i.e., such
' dispersion of courts is an untenable proposition and.reiterated
its earlier requests for division into judicial districts.
D
16. When the Government repeated the proposal; the then
Chief Justice of Delhi High Court .;ent a letter to the Lt. Gover-
nor dated 07.12.1992 enclosing therewith the resolutions
passed by the Full Court dated 31.03.1990, 06.04.1991,
25.01.1992, 28.03.1992 and 02.12.1992 regarding the division
E ·of. Delhi into five separate judicial districts. In the letter, it was
reiterated that theOelhi High Court has consistently been of the
view that the Union Territory of Delhi should b.e divided into five
separate judicial districts and insisted on issuance of the notifi-
cation for dividing Delhi into five separate judicial districts at
F the very earliest and if possible by 31.12.1992. !twas men-
tioned in the letter that the High Court is keen to expedite the
decentralization process of courts in Delhi.
17. Vide letter dated 06.07.1993, the Union Government
G sought views of the Delhi Administration on division of Delhi
into nine districts along the lines of already existing police head- ...c_ ,.
quarters and revenue district divisions. The samP. was for-
warded to the Delhi High Court by the Delhi Administration.
18. On 19.07.1993, the Delhi Bar Association went on
H strike against the division of Delhi, and the Full Court again
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 913
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

• 'r
considered the matter and it was decided to constitute a Com- A
mittee consisting of Chief Justice with four Judges of the High
Court to look into the problem and examine the matter in depth
as a whole.

19. Vide letter dated 07.12.1993, the Union Minister of
Law enquired if the High Court of Delhi was amenable to em- B
powering Additional District Judges to discharge the functions
of District Judges in their respective areas. Shortly thereafter
on 21.02. 1994, the Union Minister of State for Law requested
for the views of the Delhi High Court on the modalities for imple-
menting the decision to bifurcate Delhi into five district courts c
and other related matters. In response to all these letters, no
opinions were offered as the matter was sub judice in WP(C)
No. 766 of 1994 filed by some lawyers seeking a mandamus
for creation of the five judicial districts.
D
20. On 26.02.1999, the first meeting of the Committee con-
stituted to work on the modalities for the creation of nine judicial
districts was held under the chairmanship of the Chief Secre-
tary of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Committee
noted that while appreciating the urgency of establishment of
nine judicial districts, the Chief Secretary desired that before E
the proposal is implemented in its right perspective, the Regis-
trar, High Court of Delhi and the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi
should also facilitate the Government while affording their valu-
~
able views so far as the involvement of legal implications in the
>
proposal especially with regard to the amendment of relevant F
laws, rules and regulations, etc. along with necessary details
for minimum staff which would be required to augment the new
judicial set-up in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It was
noted that the District & Sessions Judge and the Registrar, High
Court of Delhi had expressed some of their views in this regard G
~
and assured the Committee to furnish the details at the earliest.
21. On 23.04. 1999, again a meeting of the Committee was
held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary in pursuance
of the order dated 13.4.1999 of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C)
H
..
-

914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A No. 4386 of 1998 (lhdian Council of Indian Aid and Advice vs.
y .,i
'

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.). It was decided that the
proposed nine judicial districts should be located as follows:
SI.No. Area District Courts No. of Courts

B 1. Karkardooma East & North East Two
2. Rohini North West One
3. Tis Hazari North and Central Two
4. Saket South One
c
5. Raja Garden West One
~·
6. Dwarka South West One
7. Patiala House New Delhi One
D 22. On 31.08.1999, a meeting was held at Raj Niwas be- ·
tween the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and the Lt. Gover-
nor of NCT of Delhi. The relevant portion of the Minutes of the
meeting read as under:
"First of all, the issues relating to the division of Delhi into
E
5 Judicial Districts was briefly discussed in the meeting.
It was pointed out by the Chief Secretary that the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in the recent past, had reiterated the
earlier view of establishing only 5 Judicial Districts, while

F
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi had been of the opinion that nine
Judicial Districts may be established in consonance with
"' -\I
\

the nine Police/Revenue Districts already functioning in
the city: It was observed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
that as a long term planning, the High Court was also in
agreement in principle for establishment of nine Judicial
G Districts, but to start with, it would be preferred that five
-.(
Judicial Districts be established and, in the meanwhile, "
expeditious efforts be made for the procurement of lands
and constructing court buildings in different parts of the
city towards the ultimate aim of nine Judicial Districts .... ".
H
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 915
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.)
"r
The Minutes further noted that a Committee headed by A
the Law Secretary would look into the aspect of various amend-
ments which may be required in different enactments in this re-
gard and that an exercise had earlier been undertaken by the
High Court for the purpose of consideration of bifurcation of
districts and consequential amendments along with draft notifi- 8
cations were prepared. It was decided that the draft notifica-
tions and the report prepared earlier to consider the bifurcation
-'c
would also be considered by the Committee and the recom-
mendations of the Committee shall be forwarded to the High
Court within a period of 10-15 days. c
23. The Committee submitted its report on 03.04.2000
regarding division of Delhi into separate judicial districts. The
Committee recommended that the best course for the immedi-
ate creation of nine judicial districts in the National Capital Ter-
ritory of Delhi would be to request the Lt. Governor of Delhi to D
~ inifoilly divide the National Capital Territory of Delhi into nine
civil districts in terms of Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act,
1918 and only thereafter to initiate the process for separate
sessions divisions.
24. On 20.04.2000, this Court while hearing WP(C) No.741 E
of 1989 (Delhi Judicial Service Association (Regd.) vs. Union
of India & Ors.) called for the above report dated 03.04.2000 of
the Committee and after perusing the same passed the follow,
"l ing directions:
F
"Report as to the division of Delhi into separate judicial
Districts dated 3.4.2000 has been given to the Acting
Chier Justice, Delhi High Court. This report is prepared
by a Committee of officers of various ranks both under the
High Court and of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
G
)
Two copies of this report are being given to Mr. Goburdhan.
He may pass over this report to the Lt. Governor and
Chief Secretary and other officers concerned after making
necessary copies.
H
916 SUPREME.
. COURT
'
REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A Court buildings are to come up at Rohini, Saket and Y
Dwarka. ML Goburdhan has filed status report regarding
financ_es and construction of buildings there.
We direct that a meeting be held by the Acting Chief
· Justice, Delhi High Court, which shall be attended by the
B . · Chief Secretary, Secretary (Law, Justice & Legal Affairs),
Divisional Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue), Chief
Enginee~(Civil), PWD, all of the Government of NCT of ,1.
Delhi and also by the Additional Secretary, Department of
Justice in the Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs.
c All these officers shall meet the Acting Chief Justice of the
Delhi High Court in the High Court premises on or before
26.4.2000, when all aspects of the matter shall be
discussed. A report be submitted to the Court by the
Regist.rar .of the Delhi High Court as well as by Mr.
D Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing for NCT of Delhi.
Cou.nselfor the parties shall intimate the respective officers +
. with regarcj to t~e meeting with the Acting Chief Justice of
the Delhi High Court. Registrar ofthe Delhi High Court
shall also intimate the date and time to all the officers.
E Report submitted to this court shall indicate the Division
of Courts, time schedule and when the vacancies are to
· be filled up.
These directions are issued peremptorily and there shall
be no excuse for not convening the meeting. List the 'r
F matter on 28.4.2000. Report shall be submitted by the
counsel for the High Court and by counsel for the NCT of
Delhi and they shall be assisted by the officers so as to
answer all the queries."
G 25. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Court, the Act-
ing Chief Justice of Delhi High Court fixed a meeting of the Full ""
Court on 26.04.2000 to consider the matter. The Full Court on
26.04.2000 held its meeting and delved U!)On the agenda item
: "To consider the matter regarding division of Delhi into sepa-
rate judicial districts. - Report of the Committee dated
H
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 917
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

03.04.2000" and resolved that "Report of the Committee dated A
03.04.2000 regarding division of Delhi into separate judicial
districts, adopted. Necessary follow up action be taken."
26. On 01.05.2000, this Court by its detailed order taking
into consideration the report of the Committee dated
03.04.2000, the minutes of the meeting dated 25.04.2000 and B
that of Full Court Meeting dated 26.04.2000 gave the following
J.,
directions regarding division of Delhi into separate districts for
implementation of the scheme of division of Delhi into separate
judicial districts:
c
"1. Delhi High Court will send a request to the
Government of NCT of Delhi within 15 days from
today for the purpose of issuance of requisite
notifications for implementation of the scheme of
division of Delhi into separate judicial districts.
D
2. Government of NCT of Delhi will then take necessar;
steps for issuing the notifications which shall be _done
on or before 30.6.2000 on the basis of the requisition
given by the High Court. Within the period
Government of NCT of Delhi and Central Government E
shall further consider the report of the Committee,
which has been accepted by the High Court for
creation of further posts in the Delhi Higher Judicial
Service and Delhi Judicial Service.
3. High Court thereafter will make necessary F
appointments of the District Judges and other officers
on the basis of the report and issue necessary
notifications within 15 days from 30.6.2000.
4. On 16.8.2000 five districts, which would cover nine
G
)
civil districts as per the report, shall start functioning.
5. Again within 15 days from today High Court will make
recommendations to the Government of NCT of Delhi
for consequential amendments to the statements as
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A may be required by reason of creation of sessions
divisions in Delhi.

6. Government of NCT of Delhi and the Central
Government shall then take decision on such
recommendations for amendment of the statutes. If
8 it is found that for some reasons such amendments
cannot be made, reasons for such rejection shall be
~- .
commu11icated to the High Court within eight weeks
of the receipt of such recommendations from the
High Court. If the amendments are approved and if
c the matter is being delayed, the Central Government
may consider the necessity for promulgation of an
ordinance/ordinances so that the recommendations
can be given effect to expeditiously. The Central
Government as well as the Government of NCT of
D Delhi will report to the High Court on a regular basis ·
as to the steps taken in this connection."
The Court also gave directions in regard to construction
of district court building for separate judicial districts/sessions
divisions and other aspects. •
E
27. On 28.06.2000, a notification was issued by the Lt.
Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the
Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (Punjab Act 6of1918) as extended to ·'
F the National Capital Territory of Delhi, dividing the National
Capital Territory of Delhi and creating nine civil districts. The
Notification dated 28.06.2000 reads as under:
(TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE DELHI GAZETTE PART IV -
EXTRAORDINARY)
G
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI

(Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs Dep~rtment)
H No. F.6/10/2000-Judl./694-704. Dated the 281h June, 2C
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 919
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

NOTIFICATION A
No. F.6/10/2000-Judl. - In exercise of the powers con-
ferred by sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Punjab Courts
Act, 1918 (Punjab Act 6 of 1918) as extended to the National
Capital Territory of Delhi and all other powers enabling him in
this regard, the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of 8
Delhi hereby divides the National Capital Territory of Delhi and
creates the following nine Civil Districts, namely:-
SI.No. Name of the Civil District created
1. New Delhi c
2. South
3. North
4. North-West
D
5. Central
6. East
7. North-East
E
8. West
9. South~West

The territorial limits of the above Civil Districts shall be co-
te rm in us with the existing nine Revenue Areas known as Rev-
enue Districts. F
This notification shall come into force with effect from the
1
16 August, 2000.
h

By order and in the name of the
G
> Lt. Governor of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi,
Sd/-
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta)
Joint Secretary (Law, Jus. & L.A.)
·Copy forwarded to:
)()()( )()()( xx:X'
B
28. On 03.07.2000, the High Court issued the notification
fixin~ the places of the newly nine civil districts.

29. On 26,07.2000, the Delhi Bar Association filed the in-
stant petition [WP(C) No. 437 of 2000] under Article 32 of the
C Constitution of India in this Court challenging issuance of the
notification dated 28.06.2000 and prayed for the following di-
rections:
"(a) quash and set aside the impugned Notification i.e.
D Gazette Notification No. 108 dated 28.6.2000, issued by
the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi;
(b) prohibit the respondents from bifurcating Delhi into
nine districts, as per the aforesaid notification;"
E 30. In WP(C) No. 451 of 2000 also which has been filed
by a litigant Som Nath under Article 32 of the Constitution, a
challenge has been made to the notification dated 28.06.2000.
31. We propose to dispose of WP(C) No. 437 of 2000
and WP(C) No. 451 of 2000 by this common judgment, and
F delink WP(C) No. 741 of 1989 - filed by Delhi Judicial Service
Association - relating to creation of additional posts in the Judi-
cial Service and send back TC(C) No. 38 of 1996 - filed by the
New Delhi Bar Association - relating to Patiala House Com-
plex, to Delhi High Court.
G 32. It is urged by Shri Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Delhi Bar Association that there was no spe- -4-

cific 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
H consensual decision taken by the Chief Justice of Delhi High
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 921
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
-'Y Court and the Lt. Governor of Delhi agreeing to have nine judi- A
cial districts. The subject of correspondence between the Reg-
istrar, High Court of Delhi and the Secretary, Government of
NCT of Delhi was in fact in favour of division of Delhi into five
judicial districts and it is not clear as to when and how this fig-
ure of five was converted info a figure of nine in the absence of B
consensual decision either by the High Court or by the Govern-
' ment of NCT. Before arriving at such a decision, the authorities
)<
concerned were required to apply their mind to certain salient
features before creation of judicial districts such as the interest
of the litigant and his· convenience, adequate number ofcases c
per Judge which could be placed before the courtsfor adjudi-
cation, the future requirements, providing comfortable and con-
venient accommodation to the Judges, transport/connectivity,
etc. From the material placed on record, it is obvious that such
exercise has not been done at all. It is further urged that in the
D
absence of executive or administrative order to bifurcate Delhi ·
" into nine judicial districts, this Court by its order dated 1.5.2000
erroneously directed the High Court of Delhi peremptorily to
convene a meeting and fix a time schedule for bifurcation .of
Delhi into nine judicial districts.
E
33. Countering the argument, it is urged by Shri P.P. Rao,
learned senior counsel appearing for the Delhi High Court that
it is not correct to say that no consensual decision to bifurcate
Delhi into nine judicial districts was taken by the authorities.
" The decision taken by the authorities to create nine districts F
and issuance of the notification to create nine districts has been
arrived at after due consideration of all relevant aspects. Pro-
posal in regard to bifurcation and reorganization of courts had
engaged the attention of the High Court, the Government of In-
dia and the Delhi Government since 1979 and thereafter the
G
> decision was taken.
34. It is urged by Shri D.N. Goburdhun, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of NCT of Delhi that the decision taken for
bifurcation of Delhi into nine districts was a policy decision af-
ter elaborate consultation between the Chief Secretary, Hon'ble H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

y-
A the Law Minister and the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. The
Government is the best judge to determine the choice of and to
formulate policy. The policy matters are best left for the execu-
tive/legislatures as normally it is in their domain. The court would
not interfere and strike down a policy matter which is beneficial I
B to the public at large. The policy decision which is in public in-
terest for the consumers of justice, who are paramount recipi- ~
ents of justice delivery system, cannot be faulted with on the
basis of some irregularities and normally the policy decisions '"-
•..
taken by the authorities after due deliberation and taking into
c consideration all relevant aspects would not be subject to judi-
cial review. The matters of Government policy are best left to
the Government to decide. It was urged by him that the policy
decision taken is the result of prolonged threadbare discussion
and application of mind to the relevant aspects and is not open
to challenge.
D
35. The arguments of Shri A. Sharan, learned Additional
Solicitor General are directed mainly towards challenge to
'
WP(C) No. 741 of 1989 under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Since we are not deciding this matter, we need not dwell upon Ji'
E submissions made by him in this petition.
36. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it appears to us
that the Government of India, the High Court and the Delhi Gov-
ernment were considering the reorganization of courts since
\>.•
1979. Vide communication dated 26.3.1982, the Government
F of India conveyed its agreement to divide Delhi into separate
dislricts. The High Court throughout has been insisting on ·the
division of Delhi into separate judicial districts. By communi-
cation dated 31.1.1991 from the then Union Law Minister to the
then Chief Justice, his attention was drawn to the views ex-
G pressed by the Lt. Governor that Delhi be divided into separate
-4.
judicial districts. On 6.7.1993, the Government of India sought
the views ofthe Chief Secretary, Delhi Government on the divi-
sion of Delhi into nine judicial districts. Before the decision
was taken, various details in this regard were considered at
H different times. The Delhi Government has been consistently
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 923
-y INDIA & ORS. [PP. NAOLEKAR, J.]

insisting on the division of Delhi into nine judicial districts. In a A
meeting between the Chief Justice and the Lt. Governor held
on 31.08.1999, in principle it was agreed to divide Delhi into
nine judicial districts. A Committee was constituted to, inter alia,
work out the modalities and study and advise on the notifica-
tions that may be required to be issued and the amendments B
that may be required in any Act and in any existing notifications.
The Committee submitted its report on 03.04.2000. The entire
matter was placed before the Full Court in its meeting held on
26.4.2000 and the Full Court after considering the relevant as-
pects and the report of the Committee dated 03.04.2000 ap-
c
proved the bifurcation of Delhi into nine judicial districts and
directed necessary follow-up action to be taken as recom-
mended by the Committee. The need of bifurcation has been
stressed upon and verY"succinctly dealt with in the order of this
Court dated 01.05.2000 passed in WP(C) No. 7 41 of 1989
D
(Delhi Judicial Service Association (Regd.) v. Union of India
through the Secretary and Others, (2000) 9 SCC 562), when
the Court said in para 6 as under:
"Needless to say that the working of courts at Tis Hazari
and Patiala House (New Delhi Courts) with reference to E
the accommodation for the Judges, litigant public,
witnesses and members of the Bar and supporting
services like stamp vendors, etc. are almost at the stage
of collapse. A visit to these court complexes is an appalling
experience. Situation is alarming to say the least. Everyone F
realizes so. Jammed court rooms, crowded and dark
corridors, overflowing toilets, insanitary conditions, it is
almost nauseating to visit these courts. There is certainly
a limit up to which services can be provided for all
> . concernep. Tis Hazari Court Complex was built in 1956
_# G
· keeping in view at that time the quantum of litigation and
population of Delhi. Today Delhi of 1956 is not the same
in the year 2000. With the phenomenal rise in the quantum
of litigation, new avenues of justice delivery system,
tremendous increase in number of courts and lawyers with
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 8 S.C.R.
y-
A the corresponding increase in staff and office
accommodation, Tis Hazari Court Complex has practically
ceased to be functional and the impasse will continue until
the burden is shifted to newly- constructed spacious court
complexes with modern facilities and conveniences. All
B this is necessary for efficient administration of justice. In
Patiala House Court Complex things are no better. Patiala
House was never built as a court complex. Over three
decades ago New Delhi Courts, which were functioning
at Parliament Street, were temporarily housed in Patiala
c House. No thought was ever given thereafter to construct ,.
I
a proper court complex for New Delhi Courts. Immediate
and urgent steps are needed to spread out the courts all
over Delhi. In the absence of proper provisions for
bifurcation of courts it is paradoxical that while there are
no courtrooms and space for other services in Tis Hazari
D
and Patiala House Court Complexes, over 40 rooms are
,.
lying vacant in Karkardooma. The matter for bifurcation of
courts in Delhi is pending for the last many years but no ,_
steps were being taken for one reason or the other which
we need not now go into. It must, however, be understood
E that consumer of justice is litigant for whom the courts are
established. When it comes to litigant, who is consumer
of justice, the need of the Judges and the lawyers takes
a back seat."
F 37. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that before the deci-
sion was taken, all authorities for arriving at the policy decision
were consulted and thus it cannot be said that the policy deci-
sion taken by the Government was arbitrary or without consid-
eration of the relevant material.
G 38. In State of Maharashtra and Another v. Lok Shikshan
Sanstha and Others, (1971) 2 SCC 410, the petitioner moved
.
'

an application for opening a new school which was rejected by
the authority. The rejection was challenged by the petitioner by
filing a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed
H the petition and directed the authorities to grant permission to
•'
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 925
-'f INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

the petitioner to start school. Reversing the judgment, this Court A
said:
"9 .... So long as there is no violation of any
fundamental rights and if the principles of natural
justice are not offended, it was not for the High Court
to lay down the policy that should be adopted by the B
educational authorities in the matter of granting
·"
permission for starting schools. The question of policy
is essentially for the State and such policy will depend
upon an overall assessment and summary of the
requirements of residents of a particular locality and c
other categories of persons for whom it is essential
to provide facilities for education. If the overall
assessment is arrived at after a proper classification
on a reasonable basis, it is not for the courts to
interfefe with the policy leading up to such D
assessment."
In M.P Oil Extraction and Another v. State of MP and
Others, (1997) 7 SCC 592, this Court said that unless a
policy decision is absolutely capricious, unreasonable and
arbitrary and based on mere ipsi dixit of the executive E
authority or is violative of any constitutional or statutory
mandate, court's interference is not called for. The
executive authority of the State must be held to be within
its competence to frame a policy for the administration of
the State. Policy decision is in the domain of the executive F
authority of the State and the court should not embark on
the adequacy of public policy and should not question the
efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long it falls within
the constitutional limitations and does not offend any
~ provision of the statute. G
In Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and
Others, (2001) 3 sec 635, a challenge was made to the
executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. This
Court held that it is well settled that the courts, in exercise
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
y-
A of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere
with the policy decisions unless such policy framed could
be faulted on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness,
arbitrariness, unfairness, etc. However, ifthe policy cannot
be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it
B would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify Vi
Ill
invalidating the policy. The courts are not expected to
y
express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of
time or in a particular situation any such policy should
have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion JI

c of the State.
'I''

In Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal '
and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 418, the petitione~ company
owned a factory in the State of Uttaranchal. The company f'
was engaged in the manufacture, sale and supply of sugar.
D One IGL submitted an application for grant of a licence for r
:r.i
power-driven crusher for marufacturing rab from
sugarcane. The application was rejected as per the
licensing policy of the Government whereunder a new
licence to khandsari unit could not be granted in the ,.
E reserved area of the existing sugar mills. However, the ),,.
State Government modified its earlier sugar policy and
the Government was empowered to relax the limitation in
certain cases. When new policy came into force, the IGL ,j.-
unit submitted a fresh application for grant of licence. The
F said application was allowed by the licensing authority
observing that the new unit would not adversely affect
I
adequate and sufficient supplies of sugarcane to the sugar p
mills in the reserved area and thus relaxation under the
policy can be given. While considering the policy decision ...
G
this Court observed that "a court of law is not expected to·
propel into 'the unchartered ocean' of government policies.
Once it is held that the Government has power to frame
~
' •
r:t.

and reframe, change and rechange, adjust and readjust
policy, the said action cannot be declared illegal, arbitrary
or ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution only on the
H I
lil

I
•

DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 927
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

ground that the earlier policy had been given up, changed or A
not adhered to. It also cannot be attacked on the plea that the
earlier policy was better and suited to the prevailing situation."

39. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it is appar-
ent that the policy decision taken by the Government cannot be
faulted with unless it suffers from unreasonableness, arbitrari- 8
ness or unfairness or it is beyond the legislative powers of the
State or is beyond the constitutional limits. In the present case,
not only the policy decision taken by the NCT of Delhi is founded
on prolonged and in-depth deliberation between the NCT of
Delhi, the Lt. Governor and the Delhi High Court which is di- C
rectly concerned with the division of Delhi into judicial districts,
but is also a result of directions issued by this Court by its order
dated 01.05.2000.

40. It is further urged by Shri Arun Jaitley, learned senior D
counsel appearing for the Delhi Bar Association that the direc-
tion issued by this Court on 1.5.2000 request:ng the High Court
of Delhi peremptorily to convene a meeting and fix a time sched-
ule for bifurcation of Delhi into nine judicial districts, was erro-
neous. It is contended that the Court while giving such direction
had exceeded its power by acting as an advisory to the Delhi E
Government in WP(C) No. 741of1989 and directing the Delhi
Government to issue a notification what is supposedly an es-
sential legislative function. It is urged that this Court has acted
as an advisory and directed the Delhi Government to perform
an act which is otherwise a policy consideration. In All India F
Judges' Association v. Union of India and Others, (1992) 1 SCC
119, this Court had directed the Union of India to take appropri-
ate measures in regard to uniformity in pay scales, age of re-
tirement, amenities and facilities to judicial officers, conveyance
and so on. Some State Governments had sought review of the G
directions on considerations of policy and contended that the
directions given by the Court in the matters which also fall under
the policy decisions of the State, do amount to by-passing the
constitutionally permissible modes and amount to usurpation
of the essential functions of the legislature or executive. This H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

y-
A Court while disposing of review petitions vide order dated
24.08.1993 reported in (1993) 4 SCC 288 (All India Judges'
Association and Others v. Union of India and Others), has held
in paras 14 and 15 as under:
"14 .... By giving the directions in question, this Court
B has only called upon the executive and the legislature
to implement their imperative duties. The courts do
)f
issue directions to the authorities to perform their
obligatory duties whenever there is a failure on their

c
part to discharge them. The power to issue such
mandates in proper cases belongs to the courts ....
The further directions given, therefore, should not be
•
);:
looked upon as an encroachment on the powers of
the executive and the legislature .... They are directions
to perform the along overdue obligatory duties.
D
15. The contention that the directions of this Court
supplant and bypass the constitutionC>:ly permissible
modes for change in the law, we thinks, wears thin if the
true nature and character of the directions are realised .
... The directions issued are mere aids and incidental
E ~·I ..
to and supplemental of the main direction and intended µ<

as a transitional measure till a comprehensive national
policy is evolved. These directions, to the extent they
go, are both reasonable and necessary."
In the third round of litigation, after the report of Justice
•
F
Shetty Commission, this Court again made certain
directions relating to the working conditions of the
members of the subordinate judiciary throughout the
country, reported in (2002) 4 sec 247.
G 41. Thus, we are of the view that by giving directions by
its order dated 01. 05.2000, this Court did not exceed its juris-
~
....
diction and did not encroach upon the essentially executive or
legislative function of different authorities.
42. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing
H
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 929
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 451 of 2000, has challenged the A
propriety, competence and validity of notification dated
28.06.2000 issued by the Lt. Governor under Section 19 of the
Punjab Courts Act, 1918. It is submitted that Delhi is not a State
but a Union Territory under Schedule I of the Constitution of In-
dia and that the definition of 'State Government' not being pro- B
vided under the Punjab Courts Act the same should be taken
from the General Clauses Act, 1897. The definition of 'State
"
Government' applicable in Delhi is the definition under the Ben-
gal General Clauses Act, 1899 which has been extended to the
State of Delhi by SRO 862 issued by the Central Government in c
exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 2 of Part C
States (Law) Act, 1950 and, therefore, the notification issued
by the Lt. Governor appointed as an administrator under Article
239 representing the National Capital Territory of Delhi was
without jurisdiction. The notification should have been issued D
by the competent authority of the Union of India.
43. It is the contention of Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior
counsel appearing for the Delhi High Court that the notification
issued by the Lt. Governor is in accordance with law and there
was no lack of competence in the Lt. Governor to issue the no- E
tification after the introduction of Article 239AA in the Constitu-
tion. The notification has been issued under Section 19 of the
Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act,
1918, reads as under:
"19. Civil Districts F

(1) For the purposes of this Part the State Government
shall divide the territories under its administration
into civil districts.
(2) The State Government may alter the limits or the G
number of these districts."
44. The Punjab Courts Act does not define as to who shall
be the State Government. The Bengal General Clauses Act,
1899 refers to the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section Sa of H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 reads as under:
"Sa. Application of certain definitions in Section
8 of Act 10 of 1897 to all Bengal & West Bengal
Acts. - The definitions in section 3 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 of the expression "British India",
B "Central Act", "Central Government", "Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority", "Chief Revenue Authority",
"Constitution", "Gazette", "Government", "Government
securities", "High Court", "India", "Indian Law", "Indian
State", "merged territories", "Official Gazette", "Part
c A State", "Part B State", "Part C State", "Province",
"Provincial Act" "Provincial Government" "State"
' ' '
"State Act" and "State Government" shall apply also
unless there is anything repugnant in thesubject or
context to all Bengal and West Bengal Acts as
D extended to Delhi."
By virtue of Section Sa of the Bengal General Clauses Act,
1899, the definition of 'State Government', that is applicable
to the State of Delhi, is the definition under the General
Clauses Act, 1897. The definition of 'State Government'
E under the General Clauses Act, 1897 is as follows:
"3. Definitions. - In this Act, and in all Central Acts and
Regulations made after the commencement of this Act,
unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,
F
)()()( )()()( )()()(

(60) "State Government", -
(a) as respects anything done before the commencement
G of the Constitution, shall mean, in a Part A State, the
Provincial Government of the corresponding Province,
in a Part B State, the authority or person authorized at
relevant date to exerC~$8 executive government in the
corresponding Acceding State, and in a Part C State,
H the Central Government;
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 931
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
-l
(b) as respects anything done after the commencement A
of the Constitution and before the commencement
of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956,
shall mean in a Part A State, the Governor, in a Part
B State, the Rajpramukh, and in a Part C State, the
Central Government; B
(c) as respects anything done or to be done after the
commencement of the Constitution (Seventh
Amendment) Act, 1956, shall mean, in a State, the
Governor, and in a Union Territory, the Central
Government; c
and shall, in relation to functions entrusted under Article
258A of the Constitution to the Government of India, include tfle
Central Government acting within the scope of the authority given
to it under that Article;"
D
... It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that based on
the.above definition, the authority that acts as the State Govern-
ment in a Union Territory is the Central Government and not the
Lt. Governor.
E
45. Delhi is a Union Territory and after introduction of Ar-
ticle 239AA in the Constitution, the Union Territory of Delhi is
called the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Every Union Terri-
tory is administered by the President acting to such extent as it
.J.
. thinks fit through an Administrator to be appointed by him. The
Lt. Governor has been appointed as an Administratof to ad- F
minister the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Under this Ar-
ticle, it has been provided that there shall be a Legislative As-
sembly for the National Capital Territory. After the introduction
of this Article, the National Capital Territory of Delhi has been
administered by the President through the Administrator ap- G
j.
pointed under Article 239. Thus, the Lt. Governor is the Adm in-
istrator for the National Capital Territory of Delhi and shall be
representing and authorized to act for and on behalf of the Na-
tional Capital Territory of Delhi. After the introduction of this
Article, the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 would not have H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A any application as the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 has been made
applicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Thus, the
State in Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act shall be read as
the National Capital Territory of Delhi which is represented and
administered by the Lt. Governor who has been empowered to
B issue a notification on behalf of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi to divide the territory under his administration into civil
districts. The Lt. Governor of Delhi being the representative of
the National Capital Territory of Delhi was competent to divide
the territory of Delhi under his administration into civil districts.
C 46. It is further urged by Shri Ranjit Kumar, the learned
senior counsel that after the introduction of Article 239AA by the
Sixty-ninth Amendment Act, 1991 w.e.f. 01.02.1992 in the Con-
stitution, the person authorized to make any law or regulation in
relation to administration of justice is the Legislative Assembly
D of Delhi and not the Lt. Governor. It is urged that under Article
239AA(3)(a), power to mak.e laws or rules or regulations with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or in
the Concurrent List under Schedule VII of the Constitution is
with· the Legislative Assembly except matters with respect to
E Entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State List and Entries 64, 65 and 66
of that List in so far as they relate to the said Entries 1, 2 and
18. Relevant portion of Artiele 239 and 239AA is as under:
"239. Administration of Union territories.- (1) Save
as otherwise provided by the Parliament by law, every
F Union territory shall be administered by the President
acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an
administrator to be appointed by him with such designation
as he may specify.
xxx xxx xxx
G
239AA. Special provisions with respect to Delhi.-
(1) As from the date of commencement of the Constitution
(Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991, the Union territory of
Delhi shall be called the National Capital Territory of Delhi
H (hereafter in this Part referred to as the National Capital
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 933
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.)

Territory) and the administrator thereof appointed under A
article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor.
)()()( )()()( )()()(

(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the
Legislative Assembly shall have power to make laws for the B
whole or any part of the National Capital Territory with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or in the
Concurrent List in so far as any such matter is applicable to
Union territories except matters with respect to Entries 1, 2
and 18 of the State List and Entries 64, 65 and 66 of that List c
in so far as they relate to the said Entries 1, 2 and 18.
)()()( )()()( )()()(

(4) There shall be a Council of Ministers consisting of not
more than ten per cent of the total number of members in D
the Legislative Assembly, with the Chief Minister at the
head to aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor in the
exercise of his functions in relation to matters with respect
to which the Legislative Assembly has power to make
laws, except in so far as he is, by or under any law, required E
to act in his discretion:

Provided that in the case of difference of opinion between
the Lieutenant Governor and his Ministers on any matter,
the Lieutenant Governor shall refer it to the President for
decision and act according to the decision given thereon F
by the President and pending such decision it shall be
competent for the Lieutenant Governor in any case where
the matter, in his opinion, is so urgent that it is necessary
for him to take immediate action, to take such action or to
give such direction in the matter as he deems necessary." G
;.
From the commencement of Article 239AA, the Legislative
Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has
power to make laws for the whole or any part of the National
Capital Territory with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in the State List or in the Concurrent List under H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

..,,-
A the Constitution of India in so far as such matter is
applicable to Union territories except matters with respect
to Entr.ies 1, 2 and 18 of the State List and Entries 64, 65
and 66 of that List in so far as they relate to the Entries 1,
2 and 18. Thus, the Legislative Assembly of the National
B Capital Territory has authority to make laws in regard to
the Entries in the State List or in the Concurrent List except
Entries 1, 2 and 18 and the matters enumerated in Entries '!(

64, 65 and 66 so far as they relate to the said Entries.
Under clause (4) of Article 239AA, there shall be a Council
c of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head who shall
aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor to exercise his
functions in relation to matters which fall within the ambit
of the Legislative Assembly to make laws except the
functions which are required to be undertaken under any
law by the Lt. Governor exercising his own discretion.
D
~
47. Administrction of justice and constitution of courts i$
provided under Entry 11 A of the Concurrent List and this is a
matter also under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly
upon which the Assembly is competent to make laws. Entry 11 A
E of the Concurrent List reads as under:
"Administration of Justice; constitution and
organization of all courts except the Supreme Court
and the High Courts." ~

F Further, it has been submitted that under the Government
of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, the
discretionary powers of the Lt. Governor are clearly
enumerated and these discretionary powers specifically
exclude those matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the
Legislative Assembly. It is contended that in the instant
G
case the subject matter of the notification, i.e. the
organization of courts is within the jurisdiction of the
;,
.!'.!
Legislative Assembly and therefore does not fall within
the purview of the discretionary powers of the Lt. Governor.
Section 41 of the Government of National Capital Territor1
H
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 935
-y INDIA & ORS. [PP. NAOLEKAR, J.]

of Delhi Act, 1991, reads as under: A

"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 B
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 or quasi- c
judicial functions.

(2) 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 to act in his discretion, the
D
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 required by any law to exercise any judicial or quasi-
judicial functions, the decision of the Lieutenant Governor E
thereon shall be final."

For these reasons, it is submitted that the impugned
~ notification dated 28.06.2000 has been improperly and
invalidly issued by an authority having no competence and
is, therefore, non est in law and any action taken in F
furtherance of the notification issued is also null and void.
48. To counter this argument, it is urged by Shri P.P. Rao,
learned senior counsel appearing for the Delhi High Court, that
the introduction of the Government of National Capital Territory
' G
of Delhi Act, 1991 does not in any way affect the operation of
the Punjab Courts Act, 1918; that the operation of the Punjab
Courts Acts, 1918 was extended to Delhi; that the operation of
Article 239AA does not h!1der the operation of the Punjab Courts
Act; and that the Punjab Courts Act being in operation in Delhi,
H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
...,~

A the notification for organization of civil courts is in consonance
and under the authority of Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act,
1918. It is further submitted that there is no requirement under
the Punjab Courts Act, which has provisions relating to the or-
ganization of civil courts, to place the notification issued by the
B Lt. Governor before the State Legislative Assembly.
49. The Delhi Legislative Assembly by virtue of Article \'(
239AA(3)(a) and the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution has
been vested with the power to make laws on all matters con-
tained in the entries of the State List and Concurrent List. There- •'
c fore, the Delhi Legislative Assembly has the power to make
laws with respect to En•ry 11A of the Concurrent List. The phrase II
"administration of justice" has been interpreted and given mean-
ing in The State of Bombay v. Narottamdas Jethabhai and
Another, AIR 1951 SC 69 (para 5), as necessarily including
D the power to try suits and proceedings of a civil as well as Crimi- ~
nal nature, irrespective of who the parties to the suit or proceed-
ings or what its subject-matter may be. This power must neces-
sarily include the power of defining, enlarging, altering, amend-
ing and diminishing the jurisdiction of the Courts and defining r~"
"
E their jurisdiction territorially and pecuniarily.
'
50. In the instant case the notification has been issued by
the Lt. Governor. The notification clearly specifies that in exer-
cise of the powers conferred under sub~section (1) of Section ~
L;;
19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, as extended to the National
F Capital Territory of Delhi, the National Capital Territory of Delhi
has been divided and nine civil districts, mentioned therein, have
been created. A plain reading of the notification makes it abso-
lutely clear that the import of the notification is to divide the Na-
tional Capital Territory of Delhi into nine civil districts. The noti-
G fication neither defines, enlarges, alters, amends or diminishes .~
f!i
I
the jurisdiction of the courts which are in existence nor has im-
pinged upon the existing courts' territory or pecuniary jurisdic-
ti on. The notification simply divides Delhi into nine civil dis-
tricts. Therefore, the notification merely deals with and is con-
H fined to geographical division of the district boundaries and
..
~
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 937
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
--.-
nowhere deals with jurisdiction of the courts or defines the courts' A
jurisdiction territorially or pecuniarily. The impugned notifica-
tion issued by the Lt. Governor dated 28.06.2000 covers the
subject, namely, division of the territory of U.T. of Delhi under his
administration into civil districts. The impugned notification does
not cover the subject under Entry 11 A of the Concurrent List, B
namely, administration of justice, constitution and organization of
'f· all courts except the Supreme Court and the High Court. The
powers exercised by the Lt. Governor are referable to Section
19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The impugned notification
would fall under the discretionary powers of the Lt. Governor un- c
der Section 41 of the Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi Act, 1991 which provides that he shall act in his discretion
in a matter outside the purview of the powers conferred on the
Legislative Assembly but in respect of which powers orfunctions
" are entrusted to him or delegated to him by the President or when
D
1 he is required under any law to act in his discretion.
.! 51. The enforcement of the Government of National Capi-
tal Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 from 01.02.1992 does not hinder
the continuing application of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 to
Delhi. The notification issued on 28.6.2000 itself mentions that E
the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, is being extended to the National
Capital Territory of Delhi and none of the parties to the present
petition have denied this position. The Punjab Courts Act, 1918
)_
has been extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi and
there is no notification, order or legislation brought to our notice F
whereby application of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 to the Na-
tional Capital Territory of Delhi has been repealed or curtailed.
Therefore, in the absence of any provision in the Government of
National Capital Territory of Delhi Act or in the absence of any
other notification, order or legislation, the Punjab Courts Act,
;. G
1918, has continuous application to Delhi along with the laws
made by the Delhi Legislative Assembly. Further, the Delhi High
Court Act, 1966 is an enactment by Parliamentwhereunderfrom
31.10.1966 the High Court has been established for the U.T. of
Delhi which has been referred to as High Court of Delhi. The
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A territorial jurisdiction of the High Court includes the territory of
U. T. of Delhi. All original, appellate and other jurisdictions which
had been exercised in regard to this territory by the High Court of
Punjab shall be exercised by the High Court of Delhi. The Punjab
Courts Act, 1918, though only extended to Delhi, has the status
B of a central legislation di redly enacted for Delhi. When a provin-
cial Act or an Act which may be treated as a provincial Act was
extended to the territory by a legislature, it would be deemed to
be the enactment of such legislature. This principle has been !
clearly recognised by this Court in the case of Mithan Lal etc. v.
c State of Delhi, AIR 1958 SC 682. It is, thus, clear that on the
extension of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, to the U.T. of Delhi, it
becomes a Central Act 01 an Act of Parliament as it is made by
virtue of powers of Parliament to legislate for the U.T. of Delhi by
virtue of clause (4) of Article 246 of the Constitution of India.
D Therefore, the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 assumes the position of
central legislation enacted specifically for Delhi and is the law
operative in the NCT of Delhi. Hence, the notification issued by
the Lt. Governor under Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918
has been authorized by a central legislation. Further, any legisla-
tion passed by the State Legislative Assembly is always subor-
E dinate to the laws of Parliament. Article 239AA(3)(b)&(c) limits
the power of the State Legislature which reads as under:-
"(b) Nothing in sub-clause (a) shall derogate from the powers
of Parliament under this Constitution to make laws with
F respect to any matter for a Union territory or any part thereof.
(c) If any provision of a law made by the Legislative
Assembly with respect to any matter is repugnant to any
provision of a law made by Parliament with respect to that
matter, whether passed before or after the law made by the
G Legislative Assembly, or of an earlier law, other than a law
made by the Legislative Assembly, then, in either case, the
law made by Parliament, or, as the case may be, such
earlier law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislative
Assembly shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void:"
H
--1

DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF 939
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
-r
Therefore, from the aforesaid constitutional provisions, it A
is clear that in the NCT of Delhi the laws made by the Delhi
Legislative Assembly are always subordinate to the laws of
Parliament whether prior or post in time. This has been reiter-
ated by a Constitution Bench of nine Judges of this Court in
New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab and Others, B
(1997) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Court held that Delhi Legisla-
tive Assembly is inferior to Parliament in hierarchy. The 9-Judge
Bench in para 136 at page 402 has held as under:

"By the Constitution Sixty-Ninth (Amendment) Act, 1991,
Article 239-AA was introduced in Part VIII of the c
Constitution. This article renamed the Union Territory of
Delhi as the "National Capital Territory of Delhi" and
provided that there shall be a Legislative Assembly for
such National Capital Territory. The Legislative Assembly
.. so created was empowered by clause (3) of the said article D
"to make laws for the whole or any part of the National
Capital Territory with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in the State List or in the Concurrent List
insofar as any such matter is applicable to Union
Territories except matters with respect to Entries 1, 2 E
and 18 of the State List and Entries 64, 65 and 66 of that
List insofar as they relate to the said Entries 1, 2 and 18".
~
Clause (3) further provided that the power conferred upon
the Legislative Assembly of Delhi by the said article shall F
not derogate from the powers of Parliament "to make laws
with respect to any matter for a Union Territory or any part
thereof'. It further provided that in the case of repugnancy,
the law made by Parliament shall prevail, whether the
parliamentary law is earlier or later to the law made by the
G
Delhi Legislative Assembly. Parliament is also empowered
to amend, vary or repeal any law made by the Legislative
Assembly. Article 239-AA came into force with effect from
1.2.1992. Pursuant to the article, Parliament enacted the
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991.
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A It is not only provided for constitution of a Legislative
Assembly but also its powers as contemplated by Article
239-AA. This Act too came into force on 1.2.1992. The
subordinate status of the Delhi Legislature is too obvious
to merit any emphasis."
B 52. The power to legislate to the Legislative Assembly of
Delhi shall not supersede the powers of Parliament to make
laws with respect to any matter for Union Territory or any part
thereof. If any provision made by the Legislative Assembly with
respect to any matter is repugnant to any provision of a law
C made by Parliament with respect to that matter, whether passed
before or after the law made by the Legislative Assembly, or of
an earlier law, other than a law made by the Legislative Assem-
bly, then, in either case the law made by Parliament or such
earlier law shall prevail and the law made by the Legislative
D Assembly shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void. The Punjab
Courts Act, 1918, being the central legislation, will have the pri-
".
macy over any legislation made by the Delhi Legislative As-
sembly on the subject and even if the Delhi Legislative Assem-
bly has a power to make law on the subject which is covered
E under the impugned notification, Section 19 of the Punjab Courts
Act, 1918 shall prevail on the subject and a notification issued
thereunder shall not be invalidated merely because the subject
matter also falls within the Concurrent List.
53. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the
F notification issued by the Lt. Governor dividing Delhi into nine
civil districts was validly issued and as a consequence thereof,
WP (C) No. 437 of 2000 and WP (C) No.451 of 2000 are dis-
missed.
G 54. WP(C) No. 741 of 1989 is de-linked and TC(C) No.
38 of 1996 is sent back to Delhi High Court to decide it on its
own merits.
S.K.S. Petition dismissed

H