The SC judgment is fair to India’s Constitution

Powers of both the government and LG remain vast, and must be determined by law and situations as they emerge

On Thursday, the verdict of the twojudge bench of the Supreme Court on the Aam Aadmi Party vs Centre settled t he dust on si gnificant issues, that have been a source of conflict between the Centre and the elected Delhi government for some time now. While the views on this judgment seem to have stirred a debate on the control that the elected Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government has on the capital city, it is a judgment that is, in fact, fair to the Constitution. [Part VIII of the Constitution deals with Union Territories (UT) and Article 239AA therein provides the special provisions to Delhi, which, like Puducherry, has its own elected government.]

However, the public perception is that current chief minister Arvind Kejriwal does not have the authority that Sheila Dixit did, when her government was in power. This is because Dixit had the benefit of the Lieutenant Governor’s (LG) support and cooperation with regard to issues related to services on account of her ability to work out a consensus with the latter. This is something that the AAP leader, Kejriwal, doesn’t have, and continues to be a reason why the Centre and the state have been at loggerheads. But it needs to be understood that this is a different time and that these are different circumstances.

Kejriwal, who has the benefit of being elected with a thumping majority, built his political career on the anti-corruption movement, with demands of an unprecedented shift in the process, raising the hackles of the bureaucrats. What he must understand is that the elected government cannot presume t o shake up t he system. His approach would be counter-intuitive to the prevailing procedures, and t hat t he bureaucracy can only act based on the systems that are in place. The Transaction of Business Rules (TBR), 1993, set out the processes to be followed by the chief minister, the council of ministers and officers while transacting government business. Therefore, one cannot simply go back to the old system without changing the rules or amending the Act. This is simply not feasible.

Coming to the judgment: There is clarity on issues that until now, were said to be ambiguous. The apex court has upheld that transferred subjects, such as electricity, are within the purview of the Delhi government. This, and similar subjects, are what 80% of Delhi’s population are concerned with. It puts enormous power in the hands of the elected government. On the other hand, the Anti-corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Commission of Enquiry, which are powerful entities, have been rightly assigned to the Centre. Ultimately, the fact remains that the powers and responsibilities of both, the government and the LG, remain vast and have to be determined by the law as well as situations as they emerge. Understandably, the AAP government believes that it has have been treated unfairly.

This isn’t so since its large mandate does not justify digressing from the established processes of both government and governance. The fact that transferred subjects would be under the elected representatives is borne out by this judgment in continuation of the earlier judgment of the apex court. Delhi being a special status Union Territory, the role of the LG is still prominent, and cannot be wished away. However, both the LG and the government are expected to work in a collaborative manner.

The issue of services is all important but it remains open until a larger bench gives a ruling.

At the end of the day, these rulings are intended to interpret the law and also to see that the government and the LG work in tandem effectively.