)
There seems to be no resolution in sight of the never-ending game of one-upmanship being played out in Delhi between Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung. Kejriwal’s stated position is that his council of ministers alone has the right to effect transfers and posting of senior bureaucrats. Jung, on the other hand, cites Delhi’s unique status in the country’s federal structure while making the argument that that prerogative rests with the L-G’s office since Delhi is neither a full state nor a union territory.
Both sides, on the basis of inputs they have been getting, would like us to believe that they have been following the Constitution and the Delhi National Capital Territory Act. While some legal experts are of the view that the CM does not have primacy in the appointment of senior bureaucrats, others have questioned the manner in which Lt. Governor has acted in this episode, undermining the power of an elected government.
The battle to protect or extend one’s turf may continue at various levels, paralyzing governance and polarising seemingly polarised bureaucracy. It certainly is a matter of concern. But what should bother us even more is the attempt to curtail the powers of the elected office of chief minister.
You may differ with his style of functioning. You can question his priorities. But there is no denying the fact that Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party got a historic mandate from the people of Delhi to govern for five years. His popularity can be gauged from the fact that AAP got nearly 2 million more votes than its nearest rival the Bharatiya Janata Party in the assembly elections. For a small state like Delhi, the difference is staggering.
What it essentially means is that an overwhelming majority of Delhi wants Kejriwal to run the state the way he had promised to do to the people of the city state. If he wants to govern with the help of a selected groups of bureaucrats, he should be allowed to do so. He has every right to pick his team from the available pool of officers. Denying him something as basic as this on the basis of technicalities is unfair to him and to the people of Delhi. After all, Kejriwal will have to do all the answering to the people at the end of his present term and not anyone else.
The Delhi Capital Territory Act is very clear. It says that in case of any difference of opinion between the council of ministers and Lt. Governor, the matter should be referred to the President. And we cannot have a situation where routine transfer-posting becomes such a bone of contention that it reaches the President’s office for resolution.
What we need now is some sort of clarity on demarcation of turf, even if that means amending the Act itself. While amending a more than 20-year-old Act, if that indeed is what is required to put an end to frequent turf wars, it should be kept in mind that elected office gets precedence over other authorities.
As it is, the Delhi government has no control over police and land. The latest clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs has taken away the power to appoint bureaucrats also. With services also gone out of its control, the elected office is left with very little to govern. Will the people of Delhi like the wings of their elected representatives clipped even further?
The elected office is supposed to reflect the will of the people, albeit with checks and balances – that is the cornerstone of a democracy. The will of the people must get the respect it deserves in democratic setup like ours. And Kejriwal is on the right side of the will of the people.
(Mayank Mishra is a correspondent for Business Standard)
