Stalling Delhi Budget: Bad precedent

The Lt-Governor reportedly observed that the 20% capital expenditure proposed in the budget (which is the spending on infrastructure) is insufficient

The Union Home Ministry’s action which stalled the presentation of the annual budget of the Delhi government, which was scheduled for Tuesday, was unprecedented. The ministry had stopped the budget but has since approved it for presentation. Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had announced that the budget would not be introduced in the Assembly, though the economic survey had already been presented, as there were objections raised by the Home Ministry. As per rules, the government’s financial statement is sent to the Lieutenant-Governor for comments and then sent to the Home Ministry for clearance, and later to the President for approval. This is because of the special administrative status of Delhi. At no time in the past has the budget been stopped or stalled by the Lt-Governor or the Home Ministry, even when the relations between the elected government and the Lt-Governor and the ministry were strained. It gives a new dimension to the confrontation between the AAP government and the Centre and may even have repercussions elsewhere.

The Lt-Governor reportedly observed that the 20 per cent capital expenditure proposed in the budget (which is the spending on infrastructure) is insufficient and the allocation to the Directorate of Information & Publicity, which is responsible for the government’s advertisement and publicity, was higher than last year, and was “unjustifiable”. The BJP has often criticised the AAP government for its advertisements. But it is for a government to decide its budgetary allocations and for the Assembly to make changes in them, approve them, or disapprove them. Another agency does not have a right to interfere in this process. It is not known why the Home Ministry has dropped its objections. Arvind Kejriwal had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi criticising the ministry’s action.

If there are procedural issues or lapses involved in the passage of the budget through the various authorities, there would have been some justification for the ministry’s actions. The ministry has said that the concerns about the budget were administrative in nature, but they did not seem to be so. The objections were apparently over the contents of the budget, and that made them political, and an attempt to interfere in the powers of the government and the Assembly. The priorities of the Delhi government might be different from those of the Union Home Ministry. The BJP may question those priorities in the Assembly or outside, but the budget presentation should not have been obstructed for that. Governors have stalled legislation in states on unreasonable grounds and otherwise interfered in the functioning of state governments. These objections and interventions could be extended to newer areas like the budget in an environment in which federalism is
under pressure.