[1] After India's independence and with the passing of the Government of Part C States Act, 1951, Delhi was classified as a Part C state,[1][2][3] with an appointed chief commissioner and an elected chief minister-led council of ministers, which had powers over "public utilities, sanitation, water supply et al.", that was accountable and responsible to the Delhi Legislative Assembly.

[1] As a compromise, the Delhi Metropolitan Council was formed in 1966 with the passing of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966 by the Parliament of India; the council had fifty-six directly-elected members (called councillors) and five members nominated by the newly created position of lieutenant governor (LG).

[3] In April 2015, the Delhi lieutenant governor (LG) Najeeb Jung said it was not mandatory for him to send files regarding police, public order and land—his reserved subjects—to the chief minister's office.

[6] Jung was backed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in May 2015 which through a government notification said the LG had the final decision on matters related to police, public order, land and services, adding that the Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) could not investigate central government employees.

[11][12] In August 2015, the Delhi government ordered the creation of a commission of inquiry headed by retired Delhi High Court judge, S. N. Aggarwal to investigate the alleged CNG fitness scam that occurred during the chief ministership of Indian National Congress member Sheila Dikshit.

[13] The move was opposed by Jung, who referred the matter to the Ministry of Home Affairs, asking whether it was legal for the government to form a commission of inquiry without his approval.

[20][21][22] Further, the court upheld the May 2015 Ministry of Home Affairs notification which ruled that the Delhi ACB could not investigate central government employees.

[20][21][22] The court, however, said the LG was bound by the aid and advice of the Delhi council of ministers on matters related to the appointments of special public prosecutors.

[31][32] Majumdar subsequently said he opposed the "politicisation" of senior bureaucratic appointments and refused to follow any "unconstitutional" orders from Kejriwal.

[37][38] In June 2015, the Delhi High Court refused to set aside Meena's appointment but asked him to act in "accordance with law".

[40][41] On 9 June 2015, Jung vetoed Kejriwal's transfer of IAS officer Dharam Pal from the Delhi government's principal secretary in charge of its home and land and buildings departments, citing the April 2015 home ministry notification that transferred the power over services to the LG.

[45][46][47] The move was opposed by Kejriwal, who said that deputy chief minister, Manish Sisodia, had "begged" Jung to not transfer health and PWD secretaries before March 2017.

[47] In October 2016, Jung gave IAS officer Alka Diwan the additional charge of being the Delhi Commission for Women's (DCW) member-secretary.

[50] Jung then replaced Diwan with another IAS officer Dilraj Kaur,[51] conflicting with the wishes of Kejriwal, who had nominated the commission's legal adviser P. P. Dhal to act as the DCW's officiating member-secretary.

[65] Although the court ruled that the lieutenant governor still had the right to seek the president's opinion in case of a disagreement between him/her and the government, the president—who is bound by the aid and advice of the prime minister-headed Union Council of Ministers—would be the final authority in case of a conflict, with his or her opinion being binding on both the LG and the Delhi government, it cautioned the LG to use this power only in exceptional circumstances and not in a "routine or mechanical manner".

[72] National Democratic Alliance's largest constituent the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said the opposite; one of its spokespersons Sambit Patra said the court verdict "upheld the constitution" and was "a decision against anarchy".

[71] A nominated member of the Rajya Sabha (Council of the States) and BJP member Subramanian Swamy said that while the lieutenant governor had to follow Delhi government's decisions, he or she could still oppose any "anti-national security or ant-constitutional decision" of the government and labelled its political leadership a group of "Naxalite type [sic] people".

[71] An INC spokesperson and a senior advocate, Abhishek Singhvi said the supreme court ruling was good "in principle", adding that there was no reason for the lieutenant governor to exercise discretion beyond his or her three reserved powers.