One final point about today's judgment, and then I'm done. People have (correctly) pointed out that by not clearly defining the situations in which the LG can "differ" with the CM and refer the case to the President, the Court has left the door open to abuse. (1/n)
I'd put the point a little differently. The SC has laid down the principles that should govern this situation. It must be an "exceptional case" (Majority), and must involve issues of national importance having to do with Delhi's status as the capital (Chandrachud J). (2/n)
Should the SC have been more specific? Perhaps. But judicial forums cannot police the democratic process beyond a point. So it's arguable both ways. What is inarguable is that the Court is very clear about how the LG and the CM are supposed to act. (3/n)
For example, mohalla clinics have nothing to do with Delhi's status as the national capital. So the LG cannot have a "difference of opinion" with the CM on sanctioning mohalla clinics. Etc. (4/n)
So, going forward, the LG's actions have to be judged on the basis of the principles laid out in the judgment. If future LGs - appointed by whichever party - act in contravention, then it should be clearly called out as abuse. (5/n)
Not everything under our Constitution has, or is meant to have, a judicial solution. But we have to be clear about which acts are within the spirit of the Constitution, and which aren't, so that at the very least, violations carry a political cost. Finis. (6/6)
