Open Forum
New Delhi, 12 July
2018
Governance of Capital
City
CAN WE RISE ABOVE
PETTY POLITICS?
By Dr. S.Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
The
recent judgment of the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench clarifying the
relative powers of the Lieutenant Governor and the Delhi Government is only
part answer to the issues that have surfaced.
Several questions are yet to be
settled as politics divides governance of the country’s Capital city/territory making
it more like a tug-of-war than a cordial cooperative responsibility.
Clearly,
the “war” has not ended, but continues seeking answers to remaining questions. We
have to make a thorough examination of the special requirements for Delhi’s governance
as they are bound to be different from that of other cities and States. The
real problem is to find clarity in the Capital city’s governance
beyond a solution to the current power struggle. The former will provide answer to the latter.
The
Supreme Court, in its unanimous judgment said that, “the Cabinet must convey
all decisions to the LG, but his concurrence is not required in all
matters”. It further clarified that
“though Delhi is not a full-fledged State, the LG is bound by the advice of the
Council of Ministers except for land, police and public order reserved for the
Centre”. The proviso 239AA allows the LG
to refer to the President any issue in which there was difference of opinion
with the Council of Ministers. In such
an issue, the LG is bound to follow the President’s decision. “The LG has not
been entrusted with any independent decision-making power”, ruled the Supreme Court.
Thus,
the Supreme Court has overturned the ruling of the Delhi High Court of August
2016 that since Delhi was a Union Territory, all powers lay with the Central Government
and not the
elected Delhi Government.
In lay
man’s view, the kind of controversies that have arisen in the governance of the
Capital territory is rooted in deficiencies in the Constitutional arrangements:
While the country has politically matured enough to realize the
importance of political power and is competent in playing power politics.
All
federal States have a national Capital situated mostly in the midst of a
constituent State. But, no serious
conflict between authorities normally affects its governance. Federal capitals are
governed mostly under special statutes.
Compared to provinces/States in the federation, they are given lower degree of
self-Government and often lesser share in the governance of the federation.
The
three recognized “classical federations” – Australia, Canada, and the USA – are
all big in size, and have a large proportion of immigrant population. They have
small Capital cities which have to serve as the nation’s Capital and not
function like a Province/State like others in the federations.
India
also has a need for a Capital territory which will be different in its role and
functions from other States and their capitals to suit the responsibilities of the Union
Government. To equate governance of the Capital
territory with that of any other State in the nation seems inappropriate – a
point that needs more intensive consideration not just by Parties and leaders
but by political scientists.
The term “collaborative federalism” to refer
to the interdependence of LG and the Delhi Government was used by the Chief
Justice to explain the special position of the Capital.
One of
the judges in the present case, while concurring with the judement has given a
separate opinion indicating that issues of finance and policy involving vital
national interests can be referred to
the President by the LG.
In the
US, the Capital city, Washington DC enjoys the status of a federal district and
has come to be known as “district model” Capital. It was placed under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Federal Government by an Act of the Congress in 1801. Statehood
is deliberately denied to the Capital by Article 1 of the Constitution which
provides that, “The Congress shall have power to…exercise exclusive legislation
in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 sq.miles) as may,
by cession of particular States and the acceptance of the Congress become the
seat of the Government of the United States”.
American
President Madison believed that such an arrangement was an “indispensable
necessity”. He wanted to protect the
federal Government against possible encroachment by the State in which the Capital
is located. Neutrality of the place and
national security were the prime considerations.
His arguments against statehood for the Capital
city are well applicable to all big federal governments. Indian political
conditions which presently allow continuous protests on various issues in
different forms around Parliament and Secretariat disrupting the functioning of
the Union Government point to the need to isolate the headquarters of the
national Government from local politics. Several regional Parties
have come up in India which lack national perspective necessary to govern the
capital territory wherever it may be located in the country.
Washington
DC has no voting representation in the Congress and the federal Government
maintains jurisdiction over the city. The demand there is for representation for the
district of Columbia (Washington DC) in
the Congress like other States of the US by choosing Statehood. Delhi has no such problem having its own
legislative body as well as its own representatives in Parliament.
Canada’s
capital Ottawa is a single-tier municipality and has no county or regional
municipality over it. It is governed by
Ottawa City Council which is responsible for all municipal services and a
directly elected Mayor. There are three levels of Government –
municipality, provincial, and federal - which have direct and also some
overlapping and conflicting control over and/or responsibility for Ottawa. The National Capital Region extends beyond
Ottawa into two provinces and several municipalities.
In
Australia, Canberra remains the National Capital Territory under the Australian
Constitution since 1913. Australian
Capital Territory is Australia’s Federal District under an Act which does not
provide for full legislative independence as for other Australian States. The Act provides for a Legislative Assembly
and its decisions could be overruled by the Governor-General, that is, by the
national government. This veto power was
annulled in 2011 and given to the
majority of both houses of Federal Parliament , meaning affirmation of central democratic control in the governance of the capital
city.
The
Supreme Court judgment on the Delhi Government-LG case categorically states
that, “Delhi as the national Capital
belongs to the nation as a whole”. It concerns the governance of the Capital
city and not just the powers of the LG
and CM.
Attempts
to draw lessons for other Union Territories like Pondicherry which face similar
problems or for States like Tamil Nadu where some leaders fear encroachment by the Governor in State autonomy are
improper.
The
follow up controversy regarding control
over “services”, that is postings and transfers of officials that is now raging,
has narrowed down the primary issue before the nation to the level of a struggle for power.
The
case of Delhi is unique. It relates to governance of the Capital city/region in
a federal set up in world’s largest
democracy – a question unrelated to Party politics, personality clashes, and power struggles. Can we ever rise above petty politics? -----
INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|