Clear line of control vital

Delhi Lt-G-CM Standoff

The issue is not about the relative status of an elected leader (Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal) and appointed head (Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung). The capital city might require a special body to deal with issues of national importance in which all States are in some way represented. The alternative is to entrust such matters to the Union government leaving the Delhi government to manage all other issues

India’s capital is in the vicious grip of a tussle between the Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal over their roles, functions and respective jurisdictions with both flexing their muscles. Clearly, it smacks of shadow-boxing between Modi and Kejriwal. Importantly, the issue is not the clash between an elected authority and an appointed head or between two dominant personalities as made out by some people, but the division of powers in governing the capital city.

In fact, the administration of a capital city globally has special features for performance of its additional responsibilities. Safety of the capital city from internal and external enemies is sine qua non for the safety of a nation. In federal governments, preserving the federal character in governance of the capital city is also important. Remember, Delhi became the country’s capital in 1912 and until Independence, its administration was in the hands of a Chief Commissioner. Under the Indian Constitution Part C States Act 1951, Delhi became a Part-C State. Under this provision a Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers was constituted to aid and advise the Chief Commissioner in the discharge of his functions.

However, the legislative powers of Part C States were limited. In 1956 under States Reorganization, the Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers were abolished and Delhi became a Union Territory under the direct administration of the President. The post of Lt Governor for Delhi and Delhi Metropolitan Council were created in 1966 on the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission. The Council had no legislative power but only an advisory role. In 1990, the Legislative Assembly was restored with the Lt-G retaining his place.

Undeniably, the Delhi Government has undergone many changes and still remains unsettled with multiple authorities and overlapping responsibilities. Succinctly, a State with too many cooks spoiling the broth! Arguably, a capital territory or district in any country is normally designated as a separate administrative division so that no State/province gets any special advantage in housing the “capital.” In Belgium, the capital city is a full federal unit.

Bern, Switzerland’s capital is also the capital of the Canton of Bern. Berlin, Germany’s capital, has been an independent city-State since Germany’s unification in 1990. The French capital Paris is located in a province and Brazil’s Capital set within a federal district have no special status. Ottawa, Canada’s Capital holds a special position as the National Capital Region (NCR) which represents a jurisdictional area and not an administrative unit. It is governed like a city. In many federal States, there are capital regions that do not have special significance as in Denmark.

The Australian Capital is a self-governing territory called Australian Capital Territory (ACT). It has a Legislative Assembly and its own Chief Minister. But, the Federal Parliament has the power to overrule ACT legislations. The National Capital region in the US is designed to provide superior support to the Federal Government in Washington DC. Significantly, the three major issues facing capital city Delhi – services, public order and police and land use – can in no sense be regarded as local or regional matters. They have nation-wide impact and cannot be left to the decisions of a local or State government wherein other States are not represented.

The issue is not about the relative status of an elected leader and appointed head. It is about the impact of Delhi government decisions on the nation as a whole for which the Union government is responsible. Delhi is the capital of India and not just for the region where it is located. Political pundits must ponder over the advisability of entrusting this to a local legislative body and its executive, the power of taking and implementing decisions that have a bearing on the entire country. The size of the mandate is irrelevant here.

In sum, even if Delhi is made a full fledged State, it is doubtful whether matters affecting India e.g., Parliament and the Secretariat’s safety can be assigned to its exclusive jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, parties promised statehood before elections without seriously considering its implications. The capital city might require a special body to deal with issues of national importance in which all States are in some way represented. The alternative is to entrust such matters to the Union government leaving the Delhi Government to manage all other issues. No grey area should be allowed.

By Dr S Saraswathi