Delhi BJP Government Withdraws AAP-Era Cases in Major Centre - State Reset

The BJP-led Delhi government has moved to withdraw a series of legal cases that were originally filed by the previous Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) administration, marking a significant shift in the capital’s long-running governance tussle with the Centre . The litigations, initiated over several years, stemmed from persistent disputes between the elected Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor , as well as central authorities, over control of key administrative and policy matters.

Most of the cases were rooted in constitutional and administrative grey areas arising from Delhi’s unique status as a Union Territory with a legislature. Unlike full-fledged states, Delhi functions under a dual governance structure in which the elected government shares powers with the Centre, acting through the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. This overlapping authority frequently triggered legal confrontations during the AAP’s tenure.

Among the major disputes was the appointment of the chairperson of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, where the AAP government argued that the elected administration should have the final say, while the L-G’s office asserted its role in the process. Another central flashpoint involved control over services, the transfer, posting and disciplinary control of bureaucrats, an issue that grew sharper after legal and executive changes expanded the L-G’s influence in this domain.

Several cases also concerned the appointment of government lawyers in sensitive matters such as cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots and the farmers’ protest . The AAP government objected to the L-G appointing prosecutors, contending that legal representation for the Delhi government should be decided by the elected cabinet. Disputes extended to the formation of a high-level committee on Yamuna pollution , where questions arose over administrative authority and inter-agency jurisdiction.

Financial and institutional control issues formed another layer of litigation. Cases were filed regarding funding and oversight linked to the Delhi Jal Board , as well as aspects of implementing national health initiatives such as the Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission . One of the most significant legal challenges targeted the 2023 ordinance that amended the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act , particularly provisions strengthening the L-G’s role in services-related matters. The AAP government had argued that the move diluted the authority of the elected government.

Following the Assembly elections in February 2025, the newly formed BJP government in Delhi began the process of seeking court approval to withdraw these cases. Officials indicated that continuing litigation against a BJP-led Union government and an L-G appointed by the Centre would be administratively impractical and politically incongruous. The law department initiated formal withdrawal applications, citing administrative efficiency and the need to avoid governance delays .

Importantly, withdrawal of government cases requires judicial consent. Courts such as the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India assess whether public interest or constitutional questions warrant continued examination. In May 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of several cases involving disputes with the L-G, while the High Court permitted the withdrawal of petitions concerning the appointment of lawyers in specific cases.

Estimates from officials suggest that around 20 cases had been filed by the AAP government over time, with a substantial portion involving the L-G’s authority . The broader pattern of these litigations reflects the core political and constitutional question that has defined Delhi’s governance for years: the balance of power between the elected government and the Centre.

So far, there has been no major protest movement specifically targeting the withdrawal decision, and no widely reported detailed public statement from AAP leadership solely focused on this development. However, the issue underscores how changes in political leadership can reshape not only policy direction but also the legal battles that define administrative power in the national capital.