INTRODUCTION

In India’s history, the case of Afsan Guru stands out because it is one of the rare instances of an attack intended to undermine state sovereignty. The Supreme Court ultimately rendered a partial decision in favor of the appellants, clearing one of the accused of certain charges and rejecting the appeal for the conviction of S.A.R. Gilani and Afsan Guru, despite the case’s numerous complexities regarding the admissibility of electronic records and their potential influence on the verdict. But in an effort to meet the problems of the twenty-first century, lawmakers tried to pass a rule that allows electronic documents to be admitted after much thought. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

On December 13, 2001, five heavily armed individuals drove a white Ambassador Car into the Parliament House compound. With hand and rifle grenades, automatic assault rifles, handguns, and electronic detonators, they were well-armed. They could not enter Parliament House freely or conveniently since the Vice President’s carcade was waiting to leave. The prompt response of the security officers stationed at the location and complex rendered their attack ineffective. A bloody gunfight broke out that lasted for over thirty minutes. As previously stated, the incident resulted in the deaths of nine people, including eight security officers and one gardener, and the injuries of sixteen others, including thirteen security officers. The five attackers were taken out.

ISSUES RAISED

• Is the President of India (or, for that matter, the Lieutenant Governor) authorized to issue posting orders for public services, or is the Government of North Central and North East Delhi (NCTD) competent to do so after it has been given the necessary manpower? 
• Does the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2011, and the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Schemes) Rules, 2001, allow the GNCTD to adopt executive orders without first bringing the matter to the Lieutenant Governor for his opinion or concurrence? 
• Is the Lieutenant Governor, who holds authority from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, able to instruct the ACB Police Station not to investigate crimes against Central Government officials, even if those individuals are not stationed in Delhi? 
• Does the GNCTD have the power to appoint Public Prosecutors, including Special Public Prosecutors, in specific cases, or does the Lieutenant Governor have the final say over appointments made under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)? 
• Is GNCTD authorized to form its own Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, without first presenting the issue to the Lieutenant Governor for his opinion or concurrence?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument from the side of the appellant

• P. Chidambaram claims that the LG is not a Viceroy. He is the President’s representative, and the President’s decisions determine the extent of his power. The LG is mocking the democratic process. Under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, and the Transaction of Business regulation, the LG is required to take action based on the Governor’s recommendations and assistance. The President will decide in the end if there are any disagreements. 
• According to Indira Jaising, reading Article 239 AA is necessary to prevent constitutional instability and prove that the legislative and executive branches of the Delhi government are coextensive. 
• Gopal Subramanium argued that the people of Delhi were entitled to elect their own legislature and government and to make and implement laws based on the entries in the State List. He continued by saying that the foundation of representative democracy is the separation of powers between the legislative and executive arms of government established by Article 239 AA. Therefore, no other authority should be allowed to impede the legislature’s ability to carry out this essential responsibility; instead, it should have total sovereignty over the implementation of legislation. The governor’s power caused delays and immobilized the administration. He overrides official decisions without even mentioning the government and wants his involvement on every issue. 

Argument from the side of the respondent

• The response insisted that the President continued to serve as the executive head even after Article 239 AA was added. The inclusion of Article 239 AA to the Indian Constitution has no bearing on the legislative branch’s authority; the President exercises his authority through the Lieutenant Governor. 
• Manider Singh claims that the Delhi government is only involved in local government. Examples of central law are the DANICS Act of 2003 and the Delhi Fire Services Act of 2007. The LG has the authority to defer to the Council of Ministers in a number of domains, including land disputes, law enforcement, and public order. Delhi is a Union Territory, and the President is the head of state there, functioning through the LG. 
• Articles 239 AB and 356, according to the respondent, are not the same. Article 356 stipulates that the President shall have all the authority of the state governments and the governor in the event that the constitutional machinery breaks down. Union territories are exempt from this clause because the President has the only authority to make executive decisions. Instead of allowing for the taking of power, Article 239 AA allows for the suspension of its operations if the President determines that it is necessary. Furthermore, according to the respondents, Article 239 AA’s clause 4 is comparable to Section 44 of the Government of Union Territories Act of 1963.

JUDGMENT

The Court observed the following two points:

1. In the event that a Legislative Assembly law conflicts with a Parliamentary statute on a particular issue, the Parliamentary law will take precedence, and the Legislative Assembly law will be repealed. This relates to matters that were passed either before or after the Legislative Assembly passed a law or to a previous law that the Legislative Assembly did not pass. 
2. The National Capital Territory will implement the legislation passed by the Legislative Assembly if it has been reserved for the President’s consideration and has received his or her assent. This won’t stop the Parliament from passing legislation on the same subject at any point in the future, such as a law that adds to, modifies, or repeals the law established by the Legislative Assembly.

CONCLUSION

The three-judge panel consisting of R.M. Lodha, CJ, Kurian Joseph, and R.F. Nariman, JJ, reversed the court’s decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 (Navjot Sandhu Case), to the degree that it dealt with the admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic evidence. The bench pointed out that the Court in the aforementioned case erred in holding that there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act of an electronic record, regardless of compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a special provision dealing with the admissibility of the electronic record. This is because the Court neglected to take note of Sections 59 and 65A of the Evidence Act of 1872. Applying the principle of generalia specialibus nonderogant—which states that special law always takes precedence over general law—the Court overruled the legal position regarding electronic evidence established in the Navjot Sandhu Case and held that, since electronic evidence relates to a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same.

Several important factors are raised by the N.C.T. of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu case. It first emphasizes the fine balance that must be struck between protecting national security and upholding individual rights. The case showed how important it is to uphold the principles of due process and fair trials, even when there are serious risks to the country’s security. The judiciary played a crucial role in maintaining this equilibrium by closely examining the evidence and making sure the prosecution satisfied the necessary standards of proof. This case emphasizes how important the Indian Evidence Act is. The admissibility of intercepted communications and confessions raises complex questions about voluntariness, dependability, and fairness. The trial’s format was determined by the court’s judgment in deciding whether or not such evidence was admissible. This highlights the necessity of a changing legal system that takes into account both fundamental rights and technology. 

This case study also emphasizes the importance of the appeals procedure. The repetitive aspect of justice is emphasized by the decision-making cascade that starts in the trial court and ends at the Supreme Court. Appellate courts are essential in guaranteeing the consistent application of legal principles, the fulfillment of evidence requirements, and the protection of the rights of the accused. To sum up, the case of N.C.T of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu serves as a symbol of the intricacies present in the criminal justice system of India. It demonstrated how carefully constitutional protections and national security requirements interact, underscoring the need for the rule of law and due process to hold sway even in emergency situations.