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 the dust on significant 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, are not on all fours with Puducherry which too has an elected government.]
The public perception is that current chief minister Arvind Kejriwal does not have the authority that Sheila Dikshit did, when her government was in power. This is because Dikshit had the benefit of the Lieutenant Governor’s support and cooperation with regard to issues related to services. These were the extant Transaction of Business rules then.
This is something that the Aam Aadmi Party leader, Kejriwal, doesn’t have. It 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 those were different circumstances.
Kejriwal, who has the benefit of being elected with a thumping majority and felt the mandate supported an expectation for an unprecedented shift in the process of governance raising the hackles of the bureau- crats. What must be understood is that however large the mandate, the elected government cannot alter systems and processes which are the foundation of governance.
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 and those had not changed. Bureaucrats would only follow these systems unless changed legally.
Coming to the judgment: There is complete 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 about 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 Lieutenant Governor, 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 a lot can be done within the scope of the Act and rules. The fact that transferred subjects would be under the elected representatives is borne out by this judgment and is a continuum of the earlier judgment of the apex court.
Delhi being a special status Union Territory, the role of the Lieutenant Governor is still prominent, and cannot be wished away.
However, both the Lieutenant Governor and the government are expected to work in a collaborative manner.