Khichdi – Risotto if you prefer the Italian version – is a traditional palliative for Delhi belly. But Delhi’s khichdi style political governance systems are guaranteed to give anybody the runs. So bad is the mess that it is difficult to find out who rules Delhi. The Delhi Government, a contender, appealed against orders of the Union Government to clarify its constitutional mandate.
Supreme Court clarifies the law
The Supreme Court, in its July 4, five judge bench, judgement, patiently re-explained the law, without venturing to drill down to the crux of the dispute between the Aam Admi Party (AAP) government and the BJP ruled Union government – who controls the public servants in the government of Delhi? The dispute closely resembles a Saas -Bahu quarrel – principally, who gets to jangle the house keys and run the house.
Judicial decisions unlikely to resolve political power stand-off
The AAP came to power by promising to the good but poor, people of Delhi, to set right the tyrannical, corrupt Delhi bureaucrats and other elites. The AAP found, to its dismay, that they had less real powers than the Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai. Being a glorified Municipal Commissioner was of no use in leveraging the AAP onto the national level and that too within months of coming to power. AAP chose the path of open, tactically public confrontation with the Union government in a David versus Goliath stand-off.
To be sure, the BJP run Union government’s intention were hardly kosher either. It tried to swat the AAP at every opportunity. The previous Lieutenant Governor (LG), Najeeb Jung – appointed by the Congress, called an end to his stressed innings in December 2016.
Will the Supreme Court verdict change things? India is peculiarly American in its belief that good laws and sound judgements can set things right. There is little evidence to support this belief. Laws, which are out of sync with reality and judgements which are legally correct but practically iffy are not the stuff that good governance is made of.
Expectations build reality. Delhi is often described as “closely resembling a State government”. Delhi is as much a state government as we are a “federal” country – another slipshod simplification used for the essentially unitary form of our polity albeit with some federal characteristics.
How it all began
Delhi government is a “special” child of the Indian National Congress, which was in power in the Delhi Metropolitan Council uninterruptedly from 1972 till 1990. In 1991 the INC decided to embellish their jagir with a totem of statehood- possibly to appease citizens with a magic bullet which would solve all their problems. In 1992 the 69th Amendment to the constitution – prescribed a special status for Delhi. It became a hybrid between a Union Territory, like Puducherry and a State government, like Goa.
But no matter how many new, white Toyota Innova’s Mr Kejriwal adds to his cavalcade, he will remain a Chief Minister in name only and Delhi’s Legislative Assembly a caricature of democracy. This is not because Mr Kejriwal or the legislators are wanting on merits. But the constitutional arrangements militate against them having a free hand in providing good governance.
The proximate cause of the constitutional spat is that the Union government claims the Delhi government has no independent powers of managing their employees. It must do so only with the concurrence of the Union government. Municipalities face a similar constraint versus the State governments, which sit on their heads. The Supreme Court (SC) has not dealt explicitly with this critical issue. But reading between the lines, two implicit messages emerge.
SC judgement implies Delhi Government competent to legislate and execute on Public services
First, the SC has specifically stated that all matters in the State list, other than the three exempted subjects of Public order, Police and Land are within the legislative authority and hence also the executive authority of the Delhi government. State public services are one such subject at entry 41 of Schedule 7, List II of the State List of the constitution. A plain reading of the SC order indicates that this subject is within the mandate of the Delhi government.
But Delhi does not have its own cadre of IAS officers allocated to it or Provincial Service Officers appointed by it, unlike other states. It is staffed by IAS and DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands) officers, made available to it by the Union government, which is the cadre control authority.
Union government’s view on services too expansive
It is unclear where the Union government’s powers to manage these cadres end. Allocation of specific officers to Delhi, training, promotion and disciplinary action are powers intrinsic to cadre management. But must the Union government also approve their posting to or transfer from one position to another within the Delhi government? These are routine decisions which affect individual officers but do not impinge on cadre management.
LG only an “engaged watcher” on all matters except Public order, Police and Land
Second, the SC drew a useful distinction between the right of the LG to be informed of all decisions of the Delhi government and his specific power to reserve a matter for the orders of the President. It was careful to emphasise that the latter is to be used only in exceptional cases. This indicates that the Supreme Court veers towards a rational and harmonious sharing of personnel management powers between the Union and the Delhi government.
The sprawling Delhi bureaucracy prefers the Union government as “Mai-Bap”
A May 21, 2015 notification of the Union Home Ministry espoused the view that the Delhi government has no powers with respect to management of public services on the specious grounds that it has no public services or State Public Service Commission of their own.
The Union government’s unorthodox viewpoint draws support from the all-powerful IAS/DANICS cadre which fear loss of prime status, versus the uniformed services, if they are subjected to control of the Delhi government whilst the police remain directly managed by the Union government. The Delhi High Court will now rule on this sensitive issue.
Delhi’s bloated administrative architecture wastes public money. It creates a clash of political egos and a surfeit of elected authorities all elbowing for space in just 700 square km of urban space. Delhi should revert to the 1956 arrangements – Union Territory with an Administrator overseeing the existing four civilian municipalities. But each must be headed by a directly elected Mayor. If the experiment works, India’s metros could finally join the world in participatory local governance.