Discuss the constitutional and administrative basis on which the Union Home Minister can be held accountable in Parliament for police action in a Union Territory like Delhi.

Article 239AA keeps public order, police and land outside the Delhi Legislative Assembly's competence, so policing in the national capital is a Union executive function — making the Union Home Minister, not Delhi's Council of Ministers, the authority answerable to Parliament for police action such as the force allegedly used against exam aspirants at Jantar Mantar in July 2026 [5].

Constitutional basis

• Article 239AA(3)(a) empowers the Delhi Assembly to legislate on State and Concurrent List subjects except Entries 1, 2 and 18 — public order, police and land [1].
• Under Articles 239 and 239AA, a Union Territory is administered by the President through the Lieutenant Governor; on these excluded subjects the Union's executive power operates via the Council of Ministers under Article 74 [1].
• Article 75(3) makes the Union Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha; individual ministerial responsibility makes the Home Minister answerable for his portfolio [1].
• The Constitution Bench in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) held the LG is bound by the elected government's aid and advice except on police, public order and land — judicially confirming Union control [2].

Administrative basis

• The GNCTD Act, 1991 provides that on matters outside the Assembly's competence the LG acts in his discretion, under the Centre's direction [3].
• The Delhi Police Act, 1978 vests superintendence of the Delhi Police in the Administrator, functioning under the Ministry of Home Affairs, whose political head is the Home Minister [4].

Parliamentary instruments of accountability

• Question Hour, Calling Attention under Rule 180, adjournment motions and short-duration discussions compel a ministerial statement [6].
• The Department-related Standing Committee on Home Affairs and Demands for Grants scrutiny permit sustained review of crowd-control practices [6].

Thus responsibility for policing in Delhi is constitutionally located in the Union, and Parliament is its natural forum of answerability. Institutionalising prompt ministerial statements and independent inquiry into use-of-force incidents — as the Second ARC urged for police accountability — would convert confrontation into constructive oversight, strengthening both the Article 19(1)(b) right to peaceful protest and the ideal of responsible government that Article 75 embodies.