A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court, challenging the constitutional provision that limits the number of ministers in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.
The petitioner, social activist Aakash Goel, has called for an amendment to Article 239AA, arguing that the current cap of 10 per cent of the total strength of the Legislative Assembly is outdated and hampers effective governance.
At present, the number of ministers in Delhi is restricted to just seven, including the Chief Minister, as the Assembly comprises 70 elected members.
The petitioner pointed out that despite the capital city having grown significantly over the past three decades—both in terms of population and administrative complexity—the size of the ministerial council has remained unchanged.
Delhi currently handles 38 ministries and 40 portfolios, which the PIL argues is an overwhelming burden for a small number of ministers.
The PIL was represented by advocates Kumar Utkarsh and Rahul Sagar Sahay, who submitted that the 10 per cent cap on ministers is arbitrary and violates the spirit of the Constitution.
They argued that this restriction adversely affects the principles of democratic governance and administrative efficiency. According to them, Article 239AA, introduced through the Sixty-Ninth Amendment in 1991, has failed to evolve with the changing needs of Delhi’s governance structure.
The petition further claimed that limiting the Council of Ministers to 10 per cent of the assembly strength is discriminatory when compared with other states.
It suggested that such limitations undermine the principles of federalism and equality, and thus violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The plea cited Article 164(1A) as a possible benchmark to bring parity between Delhi and other states regarding ministerial appointments.
A bench comprising Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter. During the hearing, the judges questioned whether the issue was about the number of ministers or their efficiency.
“Do you need more people or more efficient people?” the bench remarked, reflecting a concern about whether the solution lies in increasing numbers or improving administrative effectiveness.
The bench also observed that Delhi’s unique constitutional status, which includes a shared governance model with the Centre, makes comparisons with other states complex. The court asked how Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, would apply in this situation.
It was pointed out that constitutional provisions can only be challenged on limited grounds and their mere existence does not automatically render them unconstitutional.
Appearing for the Delhi government, Standing Counsel Sameer Vashisht said the issue raised in the petition would be considered seriously.
The court, while recognising the importance of the matter, did not issue any immediate notice. However, it listed the case for further hearing on 28 July, indicating that the constitutional question requires deeper examination.
Follow us
