The verdict by the Madras High Court on the respective roles of the elected regime in Puducherry and the Administrator shows the potential for conflict and the manner in which it can be resolved. Examine (200 Words)
Refer - The Hindu
Enrich the answer from other sources, if the question demands.
IAS Parliament 5 years
KEY POINTS
· The Madras high court Bench has set aside a single judge’s 2019 order that the Lieutenant-Governor should not interfere in the day-to-day administration of Puducherry.
· The apex court had emphasised on the need for constitutional morality and constitutional trust among high dignitaries, implying that Lt. Governors and Chief Ministers must work in unison as far as possible. In the event of an unresolved difference of opinion, the L-G should refer it to the President for a decision.
· The main ground on which the single judge’s verdict has been set aside is that it was based on an inappropriate parallel sought to be drawn between a ‘Union Territory’ and a ‘State’.
· Whether the precedent on the limits of the Delhi L-G’s powers would apply to the Puducherry Administrator was a question that was raised even then.
· However, the elements of conflict and discord are common to Union Territories with elected legislatures. Hence, the principle that constitutional functionaries should avoid daily clashes, with the Centre using its primacy to resolve disputes, does commend itself.
· In that sense, the single judge was not wrong in holding that the Administrator is bound by the “aid and advice” clause, and that the power to refer any matter to the President should not mean “every matter”.
· The main issue remains whether the notion of representative government should get greater credence even in a territory designated as belonging to the Union.
Shivangi 5 years
Please review.thank you.
IAS Parliament 5 years
Good attempt. Keep Writing.
