Setting the ball rolling for a Delhi administration
An excerpt from HT’S front-page report on the day the Rajya Sabha gave the Bill its nod
HT Correspondent
With the approval of the Rajya Sabha today (May 20, 1966), the Delhi Administration Bill now goes to the President for his assent. As they did in the Lok Sabha, several Opposition and Congress members made attempts to secure more powers for the proposed Metropolitan Council. Forty five amendments were proposed but none were acceptable to the Government. A demand to adjourn the House and take up the Bill in the next session was also turned down by JL Hathi, minister of state for home affairs. Shanta Vashisht, who was most outspoken in her opposition to the Bill, questioned the rush and said the Bill went “against the aspirations of the people”.
Hathi expressed the Government’s inability to concede a legislature to Delhi. He regretted that it would not be possible to extend financial powers to the council which meant powers to levy tax. The Attorney-general also advised against this. Hathi assured his critics that the council was being set up with a “sincere and honest” motive to associate the people of Delhi in the administration of the Union territory. Hathi said it sought to provide a forum at which the people of Delhi could have their voice heard on the affairs of the UT. It did not seek to provide a democratic setup for Delhi, UNI adds. The Bill would provide a unified administration and it was certainly a “step further” from the present set-up.
According to the Bill, the Metropolitan Council will have the right to discuss all matters concerning Delhi, while the Executive Council will hold charge of all departments, except law and order.
Hathi said a Legislative Assembly cannot be created for Delhi because a Legislature in the Capital was “an unusual thing” while Parliament was still functioning.
During the debate, Gaure Murhari (SSP) characterised the Bill as an “eye-wash” for the people of Delhi. The Bill was being rushed through “to please certain groups of the Congress” which were supporting it, Murhari said.
The affairs of Delhi were going from bad to worse and every other day there was a murder in the Capital. The aim of the Government should be to evolve a suitable set-up for the Capital which could maintain law and order, he said.
Shanta Vashist (Congress) opposed the Bill as it fell short of the legitimate demand of the people of Delhi for a popular set-up. She contended that an administrative set-up for the Capital devoid of financial powers was meaningless. “What is the use of having merely a debating forum?” The people and Congress leaders of Delhi were assured that the question of delegating financial powers to the proposed Metropolitan Council will be explored, she said.
MN Govindan Nair (CPD) challenged Hathi’s statement that it would be in the best interests of the administration of Delhi if it was left in the hands of the Centre. “Delhi has already been under the Centre’s rule for the past 10 years, but even the basic amenities have not been provided,” he said. “The waters of the Jumna and the Najafgarh nulla are still making surreptitious love. Electricity is no better, because of the AC and DC conflict. The buses are late, or they never come,” he added.
Santokh Singh (Cong.) urged the home minister to withdraw the Bill, highlighting the demand for a full-fledged Assembly for Delhi as that alone could help in the redressal of the grievances of the people of the Union Territory.
VM Chordia (JS) opposed the Bill saying that without financial powers, the Metropolitan Council would be nothing more than a “debating club”.
IK Guiral (Cong), who supported the Bill, said the opposition to the Bill arose only because the creation of a Punjabi Suba (a separate Punjabispeaking state) sparked new hopes to secure a Greater Hariana. Gujral said no Central Government could think of becoming a guest in its own national Capital. Abid Ali (Cong) suggested the creation of a ministry for Delhi and an advisory group to assist it in tackling the civic problems.
Jagat Narain (Ind) said that instead of duplicating civic bodies, the present corporation could be streamlined.