Delhi State

Yesterday Supreme court (SC) made it very clear that the Delhi  can not be accorded the full statehood. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra  said  ” It is clear as noon day that by no stretch of imagination National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi can be accorded the status of  a state under our present constitutional scheme.”

CJI further added that ” The status of Delhi is unique, a class apart, and the status of  Lieutenant Governor (LG) is not that of a Governor of a state, rather he remains an administrator, in a limited sense, working with the designation of LG.” Referring to 69th amendment in Constitution creating Delhi assembly in 1991, SC said Parliament approved, as per recommendation of Balakrishna report, that Delhi continue to be a union territory (UT) with an assembly and council of ministers responsible to assembly.

There is a history behind for the Delhi to remain UT. During British days also, when capital was shifted to Delhi in 1911, that time Delhi was with Punjab state . That time Govt of India Act of 1919 and 1935 retained Delhi as a centrally administrated territory. When India became republic, Delhi became part C state . In 1953, the Govt of Union Territories act was passed permitting UTs to have legislative assembly but, it was not applicable to Delhi, and Delhi was provided with Metropolitan Council. As mentioned above Delhi was allowed to have legislative assembly and council of ministers in 1991.

Salient points of  SC’s decision of yesterday:

1. LG is bound by ‘aid and advice’ of the council of ministers, does not have independent decision making powers.
2. Ministers’ decision must be communicated to LG but this does not mean LG’s concurrence is required.
3. LG must remember that it is the elected govt which is answerable to the people.
4. LG can not be obstructionist, this forms the bone of contention.. envisages a situation where LG has a difference of opinion..’on any matter’. The words any matter can not be inferred to mean ‘every matter’.
5. Centre and LG retain exclusive power over land/estate, Police , Law & Order.
6. No statehood can be granted to Delhi, under the present constitutional scheme.
7. Under Article 239AA(4), LG can refer matters to President under exceptional circumstances. The article says that in case of difference of opinion between the LG and the ministers, the LG shall refer it to the President for decision and act according to his decision.

There are still several issues which are not covered by this judgement of SC. It has not specified the ‘exceptional circumstances’, this task has been left for 2 Judge Bench of SC who is dealing with several contentious issues between LG and state govt. Then there is a Ministry of Home affairs notifications of 2015, continues to remain valid in force, where it gives LG control over transfers and appointments. This issue might snowball into a flash point between LG & Delhi govt. The Services dept have  informed the govt that since none of the adverse observations on Home Ministry’s above notification, and even SC has not quashed or stayed the order of Delhi HC of Aug 2016, that gave Services to the LG. This  was in response to Delhi’s Dy CM’s order that the elected govt has powers to all subjects including services, but excluding Land, Police and Law & Order. So what does this means,  it only indicates that Delhi govt may have to knock the doors of SC to get this issue clarified.

But there is no end to the confronting attitude Delhi’s CM Arvind Kejriwal and his council of ministers. Yesterday they won a partial political victory, and SC really cut the wings of LG, but instead of going ahead with people welfare projects which do not need now LG’s approval, Kejriwal is again in his activist mode. What was the need to write to services dept about that they have power now for services also, without realising that Home Ministry’s order on this matter is still not quashed or stayed by the SC. Secondly what was the need , when Kejriwal mentioned yesterday, that he will mobilise the support for full statehood of Delhi, after SC clarified that in the present constitutional circumstances it is not possible to accord the statehood. He should realise that for this to happen both houses of Parliament has to go for the constitution amendment, and in my opinion Parliament will not do any such amendment because Centre also wants to have some say in the running of  the administration of Nation’s capital.

What you say my friends.

Awaiting your feed backs/comments/views.