Delhi turf war gets murkier

An antagonistic NDA government and an irreverent Kejriwal are letting things go out of hand in Delhi. While the former is trying to rein in an elected government through its agent – Lieutenant Governor – the latter is not helping things by going to town with all allegations, instead of exhausting all legal options before him. In the end, it is the Delhi electorate which is losing out on the services of its elected government

“Having a right does not mean it is always right to do a thing.” So goes an adage. If there is a right way to do something, there is also a wrong way of doing it. There is also an expedient way of doing it. Now, which way the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Najeeb Jung, has done it? The L-G says his decision to appoint Shakuntala Gamlin as the interim Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government is perfectly legal and within the ambit of the Constitution. However, the head of the democratically elected Government of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, cries foul and, perhaps, rightfully so! (Arvind Kejriwal is also wrong on a different plane. We will come to that later).

Aggravating things, the Centre on Friday declared that the L-G, as the representative of the union government in Delhi, was the authority for the Delhi Police, and that issues related to land, and postings of key government officers should be decided by him. The notification came after a detailed discussion between Home Minister Rajnath Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This brings to the fore the pertinent question of “Who is the boss of Delhi?” Hitherto, a democratically elected Kejriwal was a Chief Minister without any portfolio. Today he is a CM without any powers, too.

Politics apart and interpretations of legal provisions aside, the plain and simple truth is that the L-G has overstepped his limitations. The Constitution says, “There shall be a Council of Ministers consisting of not more than 10 per cent of the total elected members… with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor in the exercise of his functions…, except in so far as he is, by or under any law, required to act in discretion. Provided that in the case of difference of opinion between the Lieutenant General and his Ministers on any matter, the Lieutenant Governor shall refer it to the President for decision and act according to the decision given thereon by the President and pending such decision it shall be competent for the Lieutenant Governor in any case where the matter, in his opinion, is so urgent that it is necessary for him to take immediate action, to take such action or to give such direction in the matter as he deems necessary.”

Constitutional experts are unanimous: There is no provision in the NCT of Delhi Act, 1991, granting the L-G the power to act at his own discretion in the matter of appoint of the Chief Secretary. The L-G has been maintaining that he is perfectly well within his Constitutional rights. But, his rights stipulate that the matter should be urgent and demanding an immediate action. There was also no reference to the President nor his decision sought beforehand in making the appointment. It is also not known whether the L-G interpreted the Article 239AA (4) which says the arrangement between the elected Council of Ministers and the nominated L-G is that the Council of Ministers with the CM as its head would “aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor.”

The law mandates that in case of differences, the L-G should refer the matter to the Council of Ministers and then refer it to the Central government for the decision of the President and then act accordingly. We will now get back to the question of if the L-G is right in doing what he has done. He seems to be on a weak wicket in this particular case and looks overenthusiastic in overriding the democratically elected government’s concern. Selecting a Chief Secretary is always a prerogative of the Chief Minister. Period. The L-G has done it in a wrong way. Coming to Arvind Kejriwal, though his argument could be legally tenable, the way he is conducting himself leaves much to be desired. Kejriwal is not just eager in being in the limelight always, but also seems to be having hallucinations.

He has not wasted a minute in going public with his allegations against a senior bureaucrat, which could demoralise those at the helm of governance. If those who come to power for five years behave in a fashion as to dent the image of those with at least 30 years of service, the fall-out could be dangerous. It is more so, in a society of aggravated concerns and identity clashes! It is not for nothing that a good number of North East citizens living in Delhi held a demonstration in front of the Delhi Secretariat protesting against the public humiliation of Shakuntala Gamlin who hails from the North East.

Kejriwal has the law on his side, as the experts feel, and could always seek legal remedies in these situations. But, that is not what he prefers to do. Running confrontationist politics has always been the agenda of Aam Aadmi Party and its leader. That he prefers a public spat over everything and then runs to the people complaining about ‘sabotage,’ ‘intrigue’ and ‘enemy’s hand’ is all too known. Be it in the case of differences within the party or over a policy with the Centre, he prefers to run his campaign-mode politics rather than adopt a conciliatory approach. The first thing he did when news broke out of a farmer committing suicide at his rally was to blame the police attributing motives to it. Like any other regular politician of this country, he jumps the gun complaining about “a BJP hand” without substantiating any such claim.

We have also seen how Kejriwal has grown sensitive to criticism in any form and from any quarter. Apart from running a campaign against his erstwhile colleagues, Prashanth Bhuashan and Yogendra Yadav, he preferred to threaten the media itself when certain allegations were levelled a woman against one of his esteemed colleagues. Kejriwal is right in his accusations against the Lieutenant Governor, but is he right in ordering the chamber of a Principal Secretary locked up for having dished out the order posting Shakuntala Gamlin as the interim Chief Secretary? The answer is certainly a big NO.

Kejriwal is also wrong! A Biblical saying goes like this: “Consider not merely what is lawful, but what is expedient and to edify others.” Was the Lieutenant Governor expedient? (In the sense that his act was suitable for achieving a particular end in a given circumstance). His actions in either Gamlin’s case or in nullifying all the postings given by the government later as the confrontation escalated only gives room to criticism that perhaps his action was governed by a self-interest and characterised by a concern over what is opportune. As the fictitious character Perry Mason argues “it is irrelevant, immaterial and illogical.”

The ongoing turf war is a poor reflection on the state of politics in this country. No one seems to be interested in the larger good of the people. It is an entirely different case if Kejriwal seeks to argue in favour of a full Statehood for Delhi. He could explore his legal options. After all, such a demand has always been there and the principle opposition parties like the BJP and the Congress had always been voicing such concerns and promising too the same to Delhiites during every election.