In what could be called a landmark ruling, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court laid down that the bureaucrats of Delhi must report to the elected representatives of the NCT government. The verdict ensures that the LG must act on the aid and advice of the elected government, except in matters related to land, police, and public order. Furthermore, the verdict is significant in more than one aspect. In the first place, it has the effect of putting an end to the long-standing dispute between the Lieutenant Governor and Council of Ministers. Political leadership and bureaucracy are the two wheels of the government. For the system of governance to run smoothly, the two wheels are required to run in sync with each other. This, sadly, has not been the case in Delhi lately. Ever since the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government came into power with a thumping majority in 2015 Assembly elections, the friction between the Centre-appointed LG and people-elected Delhi government has been intensifying. Even the Supreme Court’s intervention in 2018 — through which it ordered that the LG must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers — couldn’t prove to be of much help. Secondly, the apex court’s verdict upholds the Constitutionally enshrined principle of cooperative federalism. The LG is appointed by the central government and represents its interests in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT). However, the elected government has the mandate of the people and is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the state. The Delhi government has consistently alleged that the Centre, rather than bringing a sync between the bureaucracy and the government, has mishandled the office of Lieutenant Governor, tactically, to subvert the powers of the government. This allegation was wholly or partly justified by the recurring instances of confrontation between the two centres of power. The court’s Thursday verdict is, in a way, affirmation of the breach of the principle of federalism. Thirdly, with the verdict, the administration of the national capital region could now smoothen up. For years, the friction between the Delhi Government and LG has been obstructing the path of development in the NCT region. A logjam exists where the elected government is unable to implement its policies and decisions with due freedom. It can be recollected that the 2018 Supreme Court intervention had opened up the path for a range of crucial policy initiatives including the mechanisation of the sewer system. The recent court ruling presents hope for further streamlining of policy administration in the UT. More importantly, the judgement in the Delhi case will serve as a template for other states and Union Territories of the country as well. Certainly, the Centre versus state confrontation is not exclusive to Delhi. It is true that Delhi being a Union Territory and national capital, the LG is deliberately given greater control over administration. But even in the case of states, governors are alleged to be meddling with the elected authorities, particularly in the Opposition-ruled states. The SC verdict, thus, has far-reaching implications for the functioning of the federal structure of governance in India. It reaffirms the primacy of the elected government and ensures that the will of the people is not subverted by unelected officials. Importantly, the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, rightly pointed out that “if a democratically elected government is not given the power to control the officers, the principle of accountability will be redundant. If the officers stop reporting to the ministers or do not abide by their directions, the principle of collective responsibility is affected.” While the Thursday verdict rates high on the principles of Constitutionalism, federalism and accountability, it may have certain limitations as well. The control over bureaucracy must be exercised with great caution and finesse. In want of such caution, the performance of officers will be affected. The responsibility now rests on the shoulders of the Delhi government — not just because it will be considered solely responsible for its failures hereon, but also because it has to be honest and fair with its newfound freedom/power.