• Stating that in a democracy, “the real power of administration must reside in the elected arm of the state” the Supreme Court in GNCTD vs LG Delhi, 2023, held that the elected government in Delhi has the power to make decisions on all matters that fall within the purview of the Delhi legislative assembly.
• It reiterated that in the light of Article 239AA of the Constitution and the 2018 Constitution Bench judgment, the LG is bound to act on the aid and advice of the elected government of Delhi on all subjects except for public order, police and land (Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List II to Schedule VII). The LG has no power to independently take decisions or circumvent the elected government in Delhi. 

Positive implications:

1. Reaffirmation of the constitutional status of Delhi as a union territory and special status to the city.
2. Enhanced powers to the elected government of Delhi for making executive decisions on various subjects.
3. Better coordination between the elected government and the LG can ensure efficient and effective governance.
4. Reduction of the ongoing power struggle between the Delhi government and the central government, which can lead to better policy-making.
5. The judgment is a step towards fulfilling the long-standing demand for Delhi''s statehood, which could bring more autonomy and control over the administration to Delhi.
6. Strengthening the democratic institutions in Delhi and empowering the elected government to work for the welfare of the citizens.
7. Greater accountability and transparency in the administration of Delhi, as the ruling clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders.
8. Potential for faster decision-making and implementation of policies and programs, which could benefit the people of Delhi.
9. Increased motivation and morale of the elected government and its officials, could lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness in governance.
10. Inspiring other states and union territories to revisit their governance structures and ensure a more equitable and participatory system of administration. 

Negative implications:

1. The political landscape in Delhi may become more polarised and fraught with tensions, as different stakeholders seek to assert their interests and influence over the governance of the city.
2. The ruling may lead to confusion and conflicts between the elected government and LG regarding the division of powers and responsibilities, which could potentially hamper efficient governance in the city.
3. The central government may feel compelled to assert its authority in the administration of Delhi, which may adversely impact the autonomy of the elected government.
4. The ruling may create a delay in the decision-making and implementation of policies and programs, as the respective powers of different stakeholders have to be re-negotiated and clarified.
5. There may be legal challenges or amendments to the law that may seek to modify the ruling in the future, further complicating the governance issues in Delhi.
6. The ruling may create ambiguity around the division of responsibilities between the elected government and the LG, which could cause delays and confusion in decision-making.
7. The central government may perceive the ruling as a loss of its power and authority over Delhi, which could lead to political tensions and disagreements.
8. The ruling may not necessarily address the underlying issues of corruption and inefficiency in the governance of Delhi, which could hamper progress and development in the city.
9. The ruling may not be implemented effectively or may not result in significant changes unless there is strong political will and commitment from all stakeholders involved.

Thus, the judgment reaffirms the federal nature of the Indian polity and recognizes the importance of cooperative federalism. The judgment could set a precedent for resolving disputes between the centre and the states in India and could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the Centre and the states.