The battle over Delhi’s status
The Capital can’t be a full state. But don’t dilute the powers of the elected government
On Monday, the Centre tabled a bill introducing an amendment to the legislative framework that forms the basis for governance in Delhi — the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021. This has three elements. One, the expression “government” in any law passed by the Delhi legislative assembly would mean the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) — this collapses the conceptual distinction that existed, so far, between L-G and the government of Delhi. Two, it, effectively, expands L-G’s powers, from the realm of police, public order and land, to include all other decisions by the elected government, which will now have to go to L-G for prior consultation. Three, it weakens the power of the Delhi assembly and its committees to take up issues related to day-today administration of the Capital and conduct inquiries in relation to administrative decisions. All of this, the Centre claims, is consistent with a Supreme Court (SC) judgment of 2018 and will provide structural clarity to governance in Delhi.
It won’t. To be sure, Delhi is the national Capital — and demands for full statehood to Delhi are not justified. Global examples show that most federal governments, for reasons of security and administrative ease, retain a substantial degree of control over capital territories, even if there is variation in the scope of powers. In India, too, given the presence of Parliament, diplomatic missions, all central ministries, and the impact of events in one part of the Capital on its overall functioning, the Centre, through L-G, needs to retain a degree of control. Indeed, the District of Columbia’s residents (Washington DC) have no representation in the Senate.
But there is little sense in diluting the existing (and limited) powers of the state government, and taking Delhi back to a framework of centralised control, which is what the amendment may do. Delhi’s experiment with having an elected government has been positive — from the time of Madan Lal Khurana through Sahib Singh Verma to Sheila Dikshit and Arvind Kejriwal — for it has forced a more responsive administration. The 2018 SC judgment limits L-G’s role. The Centre must not let political considerations and its uneasy relationship with the Delhi government dictate a change that will set the clock back for Delhi.