Difficult Word/ Phrase | Contextual Sense |
Tussle | a fight, for example between two or more people who want to have the same thing |
Wrangling | An instance of intense argument |
Elaborate | Developed or executed with care and in minute detail |
Litigation | a legal proceeding in a court |
Embark on | To begin |
Confer | Grant a right, possession, etc. |
Render | Announce |
Pronouncement | An authoritative declaration |
Verdict | the findings of a jury on issues of fact submitted to it for decision; can be used in formulating a judgment |
Concurring | Being of the same opinion |
Insofar | To the degree or extent that |
Mandate | a document giving an official instruction or command |
Legislative | Relating to legislation |
Executive | Someone who manages a government department |
Domain | Territory over which rule or control is exercised |
Notion | A general inclusive concept |
Negate | Make ineffective by counterbalancing the effect of |
Underlying | In the nature of something though not readily apparent |
Undermine | hinder normal operations |
Split verdict | the award of a fight on a majority verdict of the judges as opposed to a unanimous decision. |
Flag | to draw attention to (something) |
Quietus | anything that serves to quiet, curb, or end an activity |
Third and final round: On the tussle (a fight, for example between two or more people who want to have the same thing) over Delhi’s status
Proposed Constitution Bench hearing should end the wrangling (An instance of intense argument) over NCT’s status
The complexities of the law governing the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi will once again be under elaborate (Developed or executed with care and in minute detail) judicial focus. In what will be the third round of litigation (a legal proceeding in a court) in the dispute between the Union government and the Government of the NCT of Delhi, a Constitution Bench will embark on (to begin) interpreting a couple of phrases in Article 239AA, which confers (Grant a right, possession, etc.) a unique status for Delhi. It would indeed seem unnecessary for another Constitution Bench after five judges had rendered (announce) an authoritative pronouncement (An authoritative declaration) in 2018 on various questions that arose from Article 239AA. However, the Chief Justice of India, Justice N.V. Ramana, has made it clear that the reference to a five-member Bench will be strictly limited to the interpretation of a couple of phrases that were not examined by the earlier Bench, and no other point will be reopened. Broadly, the 2018 verdict (the findings of a jury on issues of fact submitted to it for decision; can be used in formulating a judgment), through three concurring (Being of the same opinion) opinions, had ruled that Delhi was indeed a Union Territory, but the Lieutenant Governor, as the Administrator appointed by the President, should act as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, in areas in which legislative power was conferred on Delhi’s Legislative Assembly. Under Article 239AA, except for police, public order and land, the Delhi Assembly can make law on all other matters in the State and Concurrent Lists ‘insofar (To the degree or extent that) as such matter is applicable to Union Territories’. The mandate (a document giving an official instruction or command) of the hearing is to declare what this phrase means, and whether it is one more limitation on Delhi’s legislative (Relating to legislation), and by extension, executive (Someone who manages a government department) powers.
The 2018 ruling limited the Lieutenant Governor’s domain (Territory over which rule or control is exercised) by making it clear that not every decision required his concurrence. It had cautioned against the notion (A general inclusive concept) of representative democracy being negated (Make ineffective by counterbalancing the effect of), if legitimate decisions of the Council of Ministers were blocked merely because the Lieutenant Governor had a different view. The Lieutenant Governor’s power to refer “any matter” on which he disagreed with the elected regime did not mean he could raise a dispute on “every matter”. It is perhaps because of the underlying (In the nature of something though not readily apparent) message that an unelected administrator should not undermine (hinder normal operations) an elected administration that the Centre badly wanted a fresh reference to another Constitution Bench. It is indeed true that a split (the award of a fight on a majority verdict of the judges as opposed to a unanimous decision.) verdict by a two-judge Bench on the question whether ‘services’ fell under the Union government’s domain or the NCT government has flagged (to draw attention to (something)) the absence of a determination in the Constitution Bench verdict on the question whether Entry 41 of the State List (services) is within the NCT’s executive and legislative domain. Entry 41 is not one of the excluded areas of legislation by the Delhi Assembly, but it has been argued that there are no services under the Delhi government and, therefore, it was not a matter applicable to the NCT at all. Settling this remaining question should give a quietus (anything that serves to quiet, curb, or end an activity) to the endless wrangling between the Modi government at the Centre and the Kejriwal regime in Delhi.
Want to improve your vocabulary further? Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.
- Sign Up on Practicemock for Updated Current Affairs, Free Topic Tests and Free Mini Mocks
- Sign Up Here to Download Free Study Material
Free Mock Tests for the Upcoming Exams