Print Friendly, PDF & Email

06 MAY, 2017 (MAINS)



Q1. Discuss the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act. Also mention anomalies, if any that have led to recently reported conflicts between the elected representatives and the institution of the Lieutenant Governor in the administration of New Delhi. Do you think that these anomalies and events will give rise to a new trend in the functioning of the Indian federal politics? (200 words)


Please write the answer in comments section

  • Kamlesh Twari

    • The Sixty-first Amendment’ of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1989, lowered the voting age of elections to the Lok Sabha and to the Legislative Assemblies of States from 21 years to 18 years.
    • Every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less eighteen years of age on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election
    • Bringing the new trend in Indian federal politics, youth has the right to vote in every elections. The present-day youth are literate, enlightened and the lowering of the voting age would provide to the unrepresented youth of the country an opportunity to express their feelings and help them become a part of the political process. And brings out the better economy and growth in the country.
    • And anomalies regarding that the one who will crime he/she will not punish for their act acc. to the rules and amendment acts.

  • Osho Korde

    The 69th Constitutional Amendment Act:
    • The 69th Amendment Act (1991) changed the federal status of Delhi from a UT to a National Capital territory.
    • Article 239AA of Indian constitution provides for an elected government with legislative and co-extensive executive powers.
    • However, this amendment did not provide full state status to Delhi and three important subjects were kept with the centre for administration and legislation. They were – Police, public order, and land.
    Conflicts faced:
    • The escalating conflict between the Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Governor raises several constitutional and legal issues on the scope and extent of their powers in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.
    • Recently High Court administered that LG is not bound to act as per the advice of Delhi Cabinet.
    • Therefore, leading to conflicts between chief minister and lieutenant Governor.

    Causes of anomalies (conclusion):
    • These differences and instabilities of government would have no certain outcomes, they would only cause conflicts, because to change the law parliament has to amend the constitution and as for now court will only interpret constitution resulting in no change of law.
    • The solution to it is the mutual understanding of the LG and CM.

    check out link for more info:

  • Ashish

    According to the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act 1996,
    “There shall be a Council of Minister with Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Lt. Governor in the exercise of his function in reference to matter with respect to which the Lt Governor has power to make laws, except insofar as he is, by or under law required to act his discretion.” Here, term ‘aid and advise’ has not a literally meaning but a term of article.
    The unique status of Delhi and multiplicity of authorities have always been a cause of trouble in administrative affairs.
    The anomalies have existed since the formation of NCT itself but these issues have not come to the fore as the party in power at the centre as well in Delhi used to be the same, but now that the government belongs to a party different from that at centre.
    The recent tussles between Delhi CM and Lt Governor are rooted in the clause of NCT Act, because both have interpreted differently to defend their stand points.
    Undoubtedly, there is some ambiguity that is the reason in recent the Home ministry’s notification, while hearing Delhi’s Government petition, termed it “suspected” and ruled that Delhi Government has no authority to probe central Government officials.
    Further, SC’s observation that Delhi HC ruling is tentative and would not be binding has complicated the legal conflict further.
    The case of Delhi is different from that of other states or UTs;
    Some of the legislations by the Delhi Government have clearly exceeded the constitutional powers of the Government, such as the authority to Delhi lokayukt to be able to inspect central ministers and officials, have brought matters to standstill.
    However, the fear of happening the same in other states appears to be ill founded