Page:29357 2016 1 1501 44512 Judgement 11-May-2023.pdf/79

PART K an Entry leads by itself to that Entry not being available to the legislature of a Union Territory has been specifically rejected in the concurring opinion of Justice Chandrachud in the 2018 Constitution Bench in the following terms:

“461. […] The expression “insofar as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories” cannot be construed to mean that the Legislative Assembly of NCT would have no power to legislate on any subject in the State or Concurrent Lists, merely by the use of the expression “State” in that particular entry. This is not a correct reading of the above words of Article 239-AA(3)(a).”

The concurring opinion refers to Entries 38 and 40 of List II which read thus:

“38. Salaries and allowances of Members of the legislature of the State, of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and, if there is a Legislative Council, of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman thereof.

[…]

40. Salaries and allowances of Ministers for the State.”

(emphasis supplied)

Referring to the provisions of the GNCTD Act which deal with these entries, Justice D.Y Chandrachud in his concurring opinion observed that even Parliament did not construe the use of the word ‘State’ in an Entry to mean that it was not available to Union Territories, as it acknowledged the power of the Legislative Assembly of GNCTD to deal with said issues. We agree with the above observations. The mere use of the word ‘state’ in the entries will not exclude the legislative competence of NCTD. By that logic, all the entries in List II would be