The Constitution of India
Article 239AB
Provision in case of failure of constitutional machinery
If the President, on receipt of a report from the Lieutenant Governor or otherwise, is satisfied —
(a) that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the National Capital Territory cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of article 239AA or of any law made in pursuance of that article; or
(b) that for the proper administration of the National Capital Territory it is necessary or expedient so to do,
the President may by order suspend the operation of any provision of article 239AA or of all or any of the provisions of any law made in pursuance of that article for such period and subject to such conditions as may be specified in such law and make such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or expedient for administering the National Capital Territory in accordance with the provisions of article 239 and article 239AA.
Why this exists
Delhi's unique 'National Capital Territory' status, with its own elected Assembly and Chief Minister but shared control with the Union government, was created by the 69th Constitutional Amendment in 1991 through Articles 239AA and 239AB. Because Delhi is the seat of the national government and has special security and administrative sensitivities, lawmakers wanted a safety valve — similar in spirit to President's Rule under Article 356 for states — to let the Union step in and suspend Delhi's special arrangements if its government collapses or if extraordinary administrative needs arise, without having to fully dismantle its constitutional status.
How courts read it
Article 239AB has rarely been invoked or litigated directly. The Supreme Court's major rulings on Delhi's governance — notably the Constitution Bench judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) — focused on interpreting Article 239AA (the balance of power between the Lieutenant Governor and the elected Delhi government) rather than on the suspension power under 239AB itself. No landmark case has yet tested the limits of the President's power under this specific Article.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Article 239AB is the same as Article 356 (President's Rule) used in states.
Fact: It is similar in purpose but is a distinct, Delhi-specific provision tied to Article 239AA; it has its own separate conditions and has never actually been invoked, unlike Article 356. - Myth: This Article lets the President take over Delhi at any time for any reason.
Fact: The President must be 'satisfied' that either the constitutional machinery under Article 239AA has genuinely broken down, or that intervention is necessary for proper administration — these are the only stated grounds.