LG-AAP govt slugfest: the dilemma of Delhi

Seemingly, the age of elected government has passed. Its legitimacy is being challenged. This proposition owes much to recurrent deadlock between Delhi government, Lt. Governor and Centre. The political situation turned theatrical with Delhi High Court’s judgment that reduced an elected government merely to a ‘parasitically dependent’ department of Central Government. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) too is overplaying ‘political retribution’ card by subscribing ‘victimhood’ rhetoric and sheer disrespect for constitutional authorities by party appears more an electoral gimmick. The matter goes shoddier when Lt. Governor acts only as an agent of the Centre as the trend goes with other Governors too.      

Ontology of Dilemma
The High Court considered Delhi as Union Territory (UT) and Lt. Governor as the sole administrator but in the process missed out democratic ethos and sentiments. The 69th Constitutional amendment followed by GNCTD Act was a significant progress towards statehood. The court did not take note of the fact that Delhi’s Legislative Assembly under Article 246 and Article 239 AA (3) enjoys greater legislative powers with regard to State List and Concurrent List except with respect to Entries 1, 2, 18, 64, 65 and 66 comparing other

Union Territories.
Article 239AA (4) reading with section 41 of GNCTD Act, 1991 makes it clear that the discretion of the Lt. Governor extends only to matters which falls outside the Legislative Assembly of Delhi or matters entrusted or delegated to him by the President [Article 239AB] or where he is required by law to act in his discretion or to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Matters which falls within the purview of Legislative Assembly, the Lt. Governor should respect the council of minister which is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly and not to the Lt. Governor. If Lt. Governor is the sole administrator, then provision for President Rule (Article 239AB) makes no sense. It would be absurd to apply President’s Rule in President’s own Territory. Article 239AA is a self-contained code and only in case of failure of constitutional machinery the President may bring NCT under Article 239.  Section 45 of GNCTD Act (Analogous to Article 167 of the Constitution) was too misjudged by the learned judges. The obligation of the Chief Minister to communicate the Lt. Governor is limited to the final decision taken.

However, having a premonition of the High Court verdict, AAP tactically drafted the 'State of Delhi Bill 2016' to push the demand of full-statehood for Delhi to ensure accountability of Delhi Police, Delhi Development Authority and municipal corporations to the Delhi government. The party is now purely guided by electoral compulsions and thus tactically moved to mobilise the people of Delhi over this issue.

Genealogy of Dilemma
Historical facts substantiate Delhi as a federal unit of India despite having minimum provincial autonomy as Chief Commissioner Province under the GOI Act 1935. The demand for greater autonomy for Delhi began in 1947, when a committee constituted by the Constituent Assembly recommended that Chief Commissioner Provinces like Delhi should be administered by the Lt. Governor and the Council of Ministers responsible to an elected legislature but it was not considered in the Draft Constitution of 1948, which was severely criticised. Desh Bandhu Gupta made impassioned appeal to accept unanimously the recommendation of the committee which proposed a responsible government in Delhi. Mukut Behari Lal also spoke in the same tone. However, these appeals were unheeded and exercising power under Article 240, Parliament passed the Part ‘C’ States Act, 1951.  

The demand for an autonomous and democratic Delhi became more distinct when the State Reorganisation Commission (1956) recommended Delhi to be placed under Corporation. Ironically, Jan Sangh was the first party to agree with this proposal. When the report was tabled in the Parliament, Sucheta Kriplani voiced her objections on status of Delhi as “Delhi is going to lose the status of State. Our people will be disenfranchised. In place of legislature we are going to be given Corporation with limited powers. Therefore, I feel Delhi is not being dealt fairly.” C.K. Nair also articulated that “we expected a fair deal for Delhi just as every Part C State was added to Part A State, which means greater advantage and greater freedom for people of those areas.” Radha Raman argued that “If Delhi is made centrally administered it will be a retrograde step.” Shri Punnoose anguished that the Commission had placed Delhi under bureaucracy. Nonetheless Delhi was named as Union Territory in 1956 and a National Capital Territory in 1991 without bothering about the recommendations of Ashok Sen Committee in 1962 to grant largest possible autonomy to UTs. Undoubtedly, the demand for full statehood for Delhi which resurfaced from 1993 has many strategic drawbacks but stripping an elected government of its power is an alarming indicator equally. If a responsible government is the locus of democracy, shouldn’t the government of Union Territory be allowed to function adequately?

Future of Dilemma
Explanation-I attached to Article 3 necessitate that “In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), “State” includes a Union Territory…” It is also pertinent that when Punjab was reorganised (1966) and a part of the territory was proposed to be transferred to Union Territory of Himanchal Pradesh, the Constitution (Eighteenth) Amendment Act clarified that the term State in Article 3 would include a Union Territory as well. Similarly, having regard to Article 367, the Union Territories are treated as State under Section 3(58) of General Clauses Act of 1897. Affirming Delhi as Union Territory and the disputes between Delhi and the Centre a non-federal are misconceived. In this situation, the ultimate casualty is the federal-cum-democratic governance at the cost of Centre’s arrogance. Astonishingly, legal and constitutional provisions are invoked to serve the political vendetta of individuals and political parties than to democratic values. Let the better sense prevail in the verdict of the Apex Court.

(Dr. Afroz Alam is Head, Department of Political Science Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad & Dr. Yogesh Pratap Singh is Deputy Registrar)