The 360° UPSC Debate: Delhi Statehood Debate—Reasons For And Against

• According to the Act, the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is authorised to exercise discretion in matters that fall outside the legislative competence of the Delhi Legislative Assembly but have been delegated to the LG, or in matters where the LG is required by law to act in his discretion or perform any judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

The ongoing conflict between the Union government and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) has persisted for an extended period of time. In this scenario, the question arises as to whether granting statehood to Delhi would effectively resolve the persistent power struggle?

ARGUMENTS FOR STATEHOOD FOR DELHI

“In no democratic system is a government with such limited powers as this is able to represent a population of two crore individuals”

Unlike the other Union Territories listed in Schedule 1 of the Constitution, Delhi was given the title ‘National Capital Territory’ by the Constitution (69th Amendment) Act of 1991, which included Article 239 AA, which established three institutions: the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), its Council of Ministers, and the Legislative Assembly. According to political experts, the Central government is overstepping its jurisdiction in opposition-ruled states by using the posts of Governor and Lieutenant Governor to destabilise governments.

As per the statement made by P.D.T. Achary, the erstwhile Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, the fundamental matters pertaining to the allocation of authority between the Lieutenant Governor and the democratically elected government were resolved by the Supreme Court in the year 2018. Delhi has dissimilarities with both Andaman and Puducherry. This is a unique case that warrants individual consideration. Article 239 AA of the Constitution has established an Assembly and a government. In terms of constitutional exactitude, the Assembly is elected in a manner akin to that of a State, and the executive is invariably accountable to the legislative. As per the Constitution, the LG is vested with the authority to govern matters pertaining to public order, police, and land. The remaining entities included in the State List are subject to the jurisdiction of the respective State government. This implies that the Assembly possesses the power to enact legislation pertaining to the remaining subjects, and its jurisdiction over said matters is absolute. So, Delhi can be considered analogous to a state.

P.D.T. Achary also points out that the Central government introduced a modification to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 in 2021, thereby conferring dominance to the Lieutenant Governor over the democratically elected government. As per the aforementioned, the government is obligated to direct any legislation enacted by the Assembly to the LG. Additionally, the Assembly is precluded from devising regulations or establishing committees to oversee routine administration or conduct investigations. The amended Act explicitly states that any regulations or committees that were established prior to its implementation shall be rendered null and void. The revised legislation stipulates that the viewpoint of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is obligatory for all executive measures and upholds the LG’s authority to withhold any Act or issues beyond the jurisdiction of the Assembly for further review. The NCTDA Act amendment was enacted as an addendum to the constitutional provision delineated in Article 239 AA. According to Achary, the additional provisions of the Parliament are not capable of circumventing the constitutional provision and conferring greater authority to the Central government beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

P.D.T. Achary additionally stated that Parliament enacted an amendment that stipulated the Assembly’s inability to scrutinise the State government’s administrative decisions. According to the statement, the term government refers to the LG, or alternatively, to the Governor or LG who is assisted and advised by the Council of Ministers. The amendment has failed to provide clarity on the matter and has instead resulted in a state of perplexity. This proposition would be applicable solely in a university setting lacking a representative body, assembly, or accountable governing body.

However, it is incongruous with the constitutional framework established for Delhi. As per Achary’s analysis, the amendment contravened both the textual and conceptual tenets of the Constitution, and lacks legitimate constitutional authorization. The fundamental role of the legislature cannot be abrogated.

As per the statement made by Manish Sisodia, the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, during the year 1991, the establishment of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi through the 69th Amendment of the Constitution took place when the population of the city was comparatively less. Presently, the population of Delhi is approximately twenty million individuals. In no democratic system is a government with such limited powers as this is able to represent a population of two crore individuals. The current system is deemed inadequate as it no longer caters to the needs of Delhi’s growing population. Thus, the attainment of statehood for Delhi is deemed necessary.

Since the early 1960s, there has been a significant amount of support from the citizens of Delhi for statehood. The assertion can be substantiated by a C-Voter survey conducted in 2015, which revealed that a significant majority of 81% of voters expressed their endorsement for the establishment of statehood for Delhi.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST DELHI STATEHOOD

“Delhi doesn’t become a State just because of the nomenclature as Chief Minister, Cabinet, etc”

Parliamentary and constitutional scholars disagree on the subject. S.K. Sharma, who, as the Lok Sabha’s Secretary at the time was instrumental in creating the rules, establishing legislative procedures and guidelines for the Assembly, Presiding Officers, Members, and Committees, and teaching the newly elected MLAs when Delhi received an Assembly in 1993. “Delhi doesn’t become a State just because of the nomenclature as Chief Minister, Cabinet, etc,” he claimed. Parliament reserves the ability to replace any law approved by the Delhi Assembly in accordance with the requirements of Article 239 AA. According to Article 239, which Sharma cited, “each UT shall be administered by the President, not while seated at Rashtrapati Bhavan, but through a Lieutenant Governor. Legislative bodies have also been granted in several UTs, albeit only for symbolic purposes. There are riders in the case of Delhi. The Constitution has given the LG exclusive authority over several areas, including law and order, land, and civil services.

“Delhi’s Chief Minister is a toothless tiger,” claims S.K. Sharma. He is not permitted to convene a Cabinet meeting without the LG’s consent or to make any decisions without the LG’s consent. Any official may have files ordered directly by the LG. A Chief Secretary is required to follow the written guidelines. As a result, the elected system in Delhi is meant to serve as an advisor to the LG on their behalf as they administer the government. Technically, it is not allowed to be a ruler under the constitution.

In one of his articles, Senior Fellow Niranjan Sahoo of ORF’s Governance and Politics Initiative noted that important institutions like the Parliament, the President’s estate, and foreign embassies are located in Delhi. The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Intelligence Bureau (IB), two centrally governed agencies, must work closely with each of these infrastructures to provide additional security protection. These institutions fall under the exclusive control of the Union Government, not a specific state legislative body. In addition, a lot of prominent foreign dignitaries attend summits and international missions in Delhi. The federal government is also in charge of planning these missions and making sure their smooth execution. As a result, there is a compelling case against shifting Delhi’s administration from the centre to the state.

Numerous regional parties have declared their adamant opposition to granting Delhi full statehood. They believe that the national capital of India belongs to all of its residents, not just those who live in the city. The idea of sharing authority with the state government, which may potentially intrude upon their privileges and become a nuisance, has caused central ministers and members of parliament to publicly voice their displeasure a number of times. Others contend that Delhi would lose numerous benefits from serving as the nation’s capital if it became a state. For instance, the federal government is responsible for managing a massive staff and shouldering the whole responsibility of policing. Therefore, it appears doubtful that any governing regime will give in to the demand for statehood in the near future.

ARGUMENTS FOR MAINTAINING STATUS QUO

“The most difficult challenge is having two governments in the same city-state. No Central Government can afford to delegate these vital issues to someone else in a city where it also operates”

Rekha Saxena, a professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi wrote in one of the leading newspaper that, there exist significant inquiries beyond the current political discourse regarding the potential enhancement of the administration of the national Capital through the conferment of statehood. Numerous global capitals, including Canberra, Brasilia, and Washington, DC, are indicative of their distinct administrative requirements and capacity to operate as federal districts. It may be more advantageous to enhance the consultative mechanism between the central government and the Delhi administration, thereby resolving long-standing conflicts, rather than bestowing complete statehood. Create a hierarchical system that confers authority to the municipal administration to oversee the legislative, financial, and administrative functions.

Former Delhi Chief Secretary and Secretary to the Government of India Omesh Saigal said,” “Should Delhi be granted statehood? Pattabhi Sitaramayya presented the topic for the first time in the Constituent Assembly in 1947. Though B.R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, and others refused to cooperate, he was successful in obtaining a Chief Minister with limited powers in a Part C state. When the first Chief Minister, Brahm Prakash, argued with the then-Home Minister, Govind Ballabh Pant, he lost this office. If Delhi has not been granted full statehood despite constant demands, there must be big concerns. The most difficult challenge is having two governments in the same city-state. Law and order, security, and land are all State issues under the Constitution. No Central Government can afford to delegate these vital issues to someone else in a city where it also operates.

According to Omesh Saigal, the problem is more than egotistical. It covers the safety of the many organically linked entities, particularly embassies, which are protected by treaties and conventions and are granted immunity in various ways. There is also the question of visiting heads of state and other dignitaries’ security. This is a significant responsibility of the Centre that cannot be delegated to another institution. Of course, security includes the Central Government and its staff, but it also includes many subordinate organisations such as the Central police forces and offices of agencies such as the Union Public Service Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and the Central Vigilance Commission. Security for the Supreme Court and its judges is equally crucial. The two Houses of Parliament, as well as MPs, look to the Central Government for guidance. Can these concerns be addressed by separating the New Delhi Municipal Council region and keeping it as a Union Territory?

Omesh Saigal asserted that the concerns would then be mostly settled, but two would remain: the Red Fort, where the Prime Minister takes the Independence Day salute, and Palam, where the majority of foreign dignitaries land. While Palam may be argued to be beyond the Union Territory, Red Fort must be included. If this occurs, the big markets of Chandni Chowk and Daryaganj will be excluded from the State. The majority of revenue is generated by these two and Connaught Place, which is in the NDMC area anyway. Without them, the State will be practically bankrupt. Other issues, primarily administrative in nature, will be difficult to overcome. The most pressing is one of policing and law and order: where do you halt processions heading to Parliament or the Prime Minister’s residence? It will have to be done outside of the Union Territory, which will provide several coordination issues. Other issues such as water and power distribution, drainage, and road construction will also be addressed.

For any queries and feedback, contact priya.shukla@indianexpress.com
The Indian Express UPSC Hub is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Updates.