Rules committee's nod to independent secretariat, fin autonomy for assembly
New Delhi: The Rules Committee, led by speaker Vijender Gupta, has approved a proposal to establish an independent secretariat and grant financial autonomy to the Delhi Assembly.
According to sources, the committee is expected to submit its report during the upcoming monsoon session of the assembly for tabling in the house.
Officials said the move aims to strengthen the institutional framework of the Delhi Assembly in line with the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Since its reconstitution in 1993, Delhi Assembly has functioned without a dedicated secretarial cadre or financial independence.
Unlike Parliament and state legislatures—where the speaker holds authority over appointments and administration—Delhi's legislature depends on officers deputed from various government departments.
This reliance, officials argue, has led to operational inefficiencies and curtailed the assembly's functional autonomy.
"To address these concerns, the speaker proposed the creation of a separate legislative secretariat and the granting of financial autonomy during a recent meeting of the Rules Committee.
This proposal aligns with Articles 98 and 187 of the Constitution, which provide for such arrangements in Parliament and state legislatures respectively," said an official. A senior assembly official noted that the 82nd All India Presiding Officers' Conference, held in Dec 2021 under the chairmanship of the Lok Sabha Speaker, adopted a resolution that all legislatures should get financial autonomy enjoyed by both the houses of Parliament.
This resolution was later shared with the Delhi chief secretary, along with a request for prompt action in consultation with the Vidhan Sabha.
Among the three Union Territories with elected assemblies — Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu and Kashmir — Delhi is the only one constituted as a constitutional body, with a specific provision for an independent secretariat. "In view of Article 239AA(b) of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to regulate matters concerning the Delhi Legislative Assembly, the Rules Committee may recommend an amendment to the GNCTD Act, 1991.
This would facilitate the establishment of a separate secretariat and financial autonomy, bringing the Delhi Assembly on par with state legislatures," said an official.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Calcutta HC questions Bengal govt over monetary support to sacked non-teaching staff
The Calcutta High Court on Monday reserved its judgment on a petition challenging the West Bengal government's decision to provide monetary relief to Group C and D employees whose jobs were terminated by the Supreme Court in April this year. Before reserving its order, the single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha posed some pointed questions to the state government. Questioning the decision of giving monthly `25,000 and `20,000 monthly allowance to the sacked Group C and D staff, Justice Amrita Sinha said: '…How was the amount decided… Will they get money sitting at home? For how long will they be paid?' On being informed by Advocate General Kishore Dutta that the money is being disbursed from April 1, Justice Sinha asked why the State government was in such a hurry to give allowance. 'Right now, the money should not be disbursed. There are some protocols that are to be followed,' Justice Sinha added. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, appearing for petitioners — two waitlist candidates Prakash Mandal and Jhantu Kumar Bera — argued that monetary allowances cannot be given to the sacked Group C and D staffers as their recruitment was termed illegal by the Supreme Court. To this, Advocate General Dutta, representing the state government, questioned the locus standi of the petitioners and said they should approach the Supreme Court since they claim that the scheme in question violates the order of the apex court. 'We should see who have filed these petitions… those on the waiting list. This is not a Public Interest Litigation. Those on the waiting list cannot have any grievance on this matter. Plus, the state government has the authority to take such decisions. This power is given to the State by the Constitution. And the allowance that is being given purely on humanitarian grounds,' Dutta argued. Justice Sinha then remarked: 'The state will provide allowances month after month to run their families, but they will not work?.. It is clear that these individuals will sit at home and get money. Does the state have any scheme for those who are deprived or are sitting on the road, or are unemployed?' The Advocate General said the scheme was 'temporary in nature', and would come to an end once the apex court takes a final decision on the review petitions of the state government.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
PM Modi's 11 years dealt blow to democracy & economy: Congress
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge. (File Photo) NEW DELHI: Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on Monday alleged the Modi govt's 11 years have dealt a serious blow to democracy, economy and social fabric, as he accused RSS-BJP of creating an environment of hatred and fear in society and exploiting the marginalised communities. He said the BJP rule has smeared "the ink of dictatorship on every page of the Constitution". The party released a document "ek aur baar, jumla sarkar" to slam BJP's claims of achievements in govt. Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi said, "The 11 years of Modi govt: no accountability, no change, only propaganda. The govt has stopped talking about 2025, and is now selling dreams of 2047. Who will see what the country is facing today?" Kharge said, "BJP-RSS has weakened every constitutional institution and attacked their autonomy. Whether it is stealing public mandate and toppling govts or forcibly imposing one-party dictatorship. During this period, the rights of states have been ignored and the federal structure has weakened."
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
From socialism to market economy-Power over private property
The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Recently, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud led the majority (8:1) and wrote: 'India's economic trajectory has shifted from socialism to liberalization and market reforms. The Constitution does not endorse any single economic ideology.' He added that calling all private property 'material resources' forces a rigid socialist theory, which no longer reflects India's democratic economic reality. Are there any limits on power of the government over private property? Can the government seize any private property by calling it a 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution? On 5 November 2024, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict in the Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra case. The ruling settled a long-standing constitutional question: It answered with a clear no, thereby reaffirming individual property rights and limiting government power. This judgment has brought clarity to the conflict between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights, and overruled earlier judgments that adopted a broad socialist interpretation of Article 39(b). Ignoring the Directive Principles Article 39(b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution. It says: 'The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.' It encourages laws for equitable distribution of wealth and resources, but DPSPs are not legally enforceable—they are only guiding principles. Do we have any Property Rights? Before 1978, right to property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, due to frequent land reforms, bank nationalization, and other socialist welfare measures, the Parliament passed the: 25th Constitutional Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C to protect laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from being challenged for violating Fundamental Rights like Articles 14, 19, and 31. 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976): Further expanded Article 31C to cover all Directive Principles, not just 39(b) and (c). But in Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this wider protection, ruling that only Article 39(b) and (c) could remain shielded. Where Article 31C was upheld: In the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court upheld Article 31C, but with a caveat — laws passed under it must still pass judicial review. This was to prevent misuse of DPSPs to undermine basic structure principles like judicial independence or fundamental rights. Thus, the Court permitted limited curtailment of property rights, but only in pursuit of the common good as envisaged in Articles 39(b) and (c), and not at the cost of the basic structure of the Constitution. A 32-year fight for justice: Though justice is upheld in some cases, delay is the biggest problem. The current verdict comes from a petition filed by the Property Owners Association (POA) in Mumbai, challenging Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA), 1976, which permitted the government to acquire 'cessed properties' (old private buildings) for restoration. The POA argued this violated their right to property, and that Article 39(b) had been wrongly used to justify taking over all private property. The case spanned decades and multiple bench references, eventually resulting in this nine-judge bench being formed. Govt cannot acquire private property per se: The Court ruled that not every private property can be called a 'material resource of the community'. Article 39(b) does not give the government a blanket power to seize all private assets for the 'common good'. Material resources- Limited, not universal: The court clarified that 'material resources' must meet specific criteria such as: Belonging in public trust; Having community impact; being scarce or capable of causing harm by monopoly and possessing intrinsic public value like water and minerals, among others. Thus, private homes or businesses do not automatically qualify. Balanced approach to 'distribution' The term 'distribution' under Article 39(b) includes: Government acquisition and redistribution to private parties — only when it benefits the common good. So, laws under 39(b) must meet both public interest and proportionality tests. Survival of Article 31C: The Court confirmed Article 31C still protects laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from Fundamental Rights challenges, but not from judicial review. This limits the misuse of Article 31C as a shield. The court recognized the dramatic shifts like private property, from traditional assets to data and space exploration. The judgment emphasizes the need to respect evolving market realities. Are we reinforcing a market-oriented economic model? It is interpreted that this judgment offers protection for marginalized communities against the unjust acquisition of their small farms and forest lands while promoting responsible management of essential public resources. The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Justice Iyer's opinion was relied on by subsequent Constitution Benches in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing and Mafatlal Industries judgments in 1982 and 1997, respectively; hence, necessitating a reference to the nine-judge Bench. The CJI quoted a 'harsh' observation made by the Chief Justice about Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in a 'proposed judgment'. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. Justice Krishna Iyer's dissenting view in Ranganath Reddy (1977) that all private wealth could be treated as public resources. The judgment noted that while Justice Iyer's ideas were rooted in the socialist vision of the 1970s, India's voters have since chosen liberal economic policies. Rejecting the view of Justice Iyer as one presenting a 'particular ideology', the majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Chandrachud said India has moved on from socialism to liberalisation to market-based reforms. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge, whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. In separate opinions, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, he had observed that 'the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution'. Dissenting: Justice B.V. Nagarathna: 'Judges must not decry the contributions of their predecessors. The institution is greater than individuals.' Justice Dhulia praised Justice Iyer's humanist vision, saying: 'The Krishna Iyer Doctrine was built on fairness and empathy. In dark times, it illuminated our path.' Though he dissented on interpretational grounds, he recognized the spirit of the Constitution as a living document, balancing rights and welfare. Finally, the November 5, 2024 Supreme Court ruling is a turning point in the constitutional understanding of property rights in India, saying: Individual property rights are protected. The government cannot seize private property arbitrarily. Article 39(b) remains relevant but must be applied with caution and clear public purpose. Article 31C survives, but judicial review cannot be ousted. The Directive Principles must align with fundamental rights, not override them. Courts remain vigilant in preserving constitutional balance between economic justice and individual liberty. This landmark judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court's role as a constitutional guardian, ensuring that the state acts for public welfare without violating basic rights. It also recognizes the evolving nature of economic policies in a vibrant democracy, where people, not dogmas, shape the nation's path. (The writer is Professor of the Constitution of India and founder-Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
