By Rajdeep Sardesai
“As the state and civic body elections have shown, Kejriwal has emerged as Delhi’s neta number one, the AAP having built a strong connect at the local mohalla level. The AAP’s political ideas and style of functioning can be contested but the popularity of its leadership is undeniable.”
In a national capital with the maximum number of political VVIPs, here is an intriguing question: who is the Big Boss of Delhi? Is it the union home ministry which controls the sprawling Union Territory of Delhi? Is it the Lieutenant Governor as a representative of the Centre who is the final authority? Or is it an elected chief minister who has the powers to run the city? Amidst legal ambiguity and escalating political conflict, there are growing concerns over the hyper-partisan role being played by non-elected constitutional functionaries residing in plush Raj Bhavans across the country.
The most recent example in Delhi of the stand off between the Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena and chief minister Arvind Kejriwal is the fracas over the important Mayoral election for the city. The LG unilaterally nominates his ‘aldermen’ (nominated members) to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and decides on a presiding officer of his choice bypassing the elected state government, leading to total pandemonium in the civic body between the Aam Aadmi party and BJP councillors, eventually resulting in the mayoral election process being stalled.
Several charges have been exchanged by both sides of which the most serious is quite simply this: is the LG acting as a neutral umpire between the competing political forces or is he a twelfth man playing for one side by usurping the powers of an elected government in a manner that renders the Kejriwal government almost irrelevant, if not impotent? Under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act 1992, the LG is expected to act on the aid and advise of the council of ministers except in matters of police, public order and land. The concept of a governor acting on the ‘aid and advise’ of council of ministers means that executive powers is vested in the elected government and not in an unelected LG. Any other interpretation should be seen as a constitutional perversion.
However, in March 2021, the BJP-majority parliament pushed through amendments to the GNCTD Act which have effectively whittled down the decision making powers and autonomy of the elected state government and has given the LG supervisory powers over almost any decision taken by the state cabinet. The amendments say that the Government of the Capital Territory of Delhi means the Lieutenant Governor-Administrator, a definitional sleight of hand that allows an LG to bypass the state government at his discretion.
Which is exactly what has happened ever since Mr Saxena took over as LG in May last year. On almost every issue, he seems to be engaged in a head on public collision with the Kejriwal government, virtually taking over the administrative functioning of the state capital. The reporting structure of the bureaucracy appears now to be directly to the LG office, often sidestepping the chief minister and his cabinet. That a three time elected chief minister – twice with thumping majorities – should be subservient to a non-elected government official is a travesty of constitutional democracy: could anyone countenance a situation where tomorrow the President of India were to dictate terms to the political executive at the Centre? How does one hold the Kejriwal government accountable for promises made at election time if his ministers are rendered powerless?
Unfortunately, for eight years now, the citizens of Delhi are caught in this unseemly political tug of war between a dominant Modi government at the Centre and a defiant Kejriwal regime in Delhi. As the state and civic body elections have shown, Kejriwal has emerged as Delhi’s neta number one, the AAP having built a strong connect at the local mohalla level. The AAP’s political ideas and style of functioning can be contested but the popularity of its leadership is undeniable. The BJP has been unable to combat Kejriwal’s appeal despite frequent changes in its state leadership. A politically partisan LG seems to be therefore the only ploy to cut the AAP leadership to size.
This misuse of constitutional functionaries is not unique to Delhi either but is part of a clear emerging pattern that has ominous portents for elected governments and democratic processes. Across the country, opposition state governments find themselves in the cross-hairs of Raj Bhavans acting as political partisans instead of unbiased guardians of the constitution.
The unprecedented action this week of Tamil Nadu governor, RN Ravi in delivering a speech that deviated from an approved text and then staging a walk out from the state assembly is typical of the total disregard for constitutional conventions. Here is a governor who is sitting on bills and making a series of politically loaded statements, even calling for Tamil Nadu’s name to be changed. He is not alone. In Kerala, the high-profile governor Arif Mohammad Khan has been engaged in an open war of words with chief minister, Pinarayi Vijayan. In Punjab, the governor refused to summon a special session of the assembly. In Maharashtra, governor BS Koshiyari – a former BJP chief minister from Uttarakhand – was accused of aiding the Shiv Sena rebellion by rushing ahead with a new government formation while disregarding defection petitions pending in the Supreme Court. In Telangana, there has been a bruising tug of war between chief minister K Chandrashekhar Rao and Governor Tamilsai Soundarajan, another example of a BJP politician now residing in a Raj Bhavan.
The argument that previous governments at the Centre have routinely misused Raj Bhavans will not stick any longer. Rubber stamp governors being guilty of arbitrarily dismissing state governments during Congress regimes in the past can be no justification for gubernatorial interventions that are so brazenly politically aligned. Article 154 (2) (a) in the constitution says: ‘Nothing in this article shall be deemed to transfer to the Governor any functions conferred by any existing law or any other authority.” Plainly, the constitution does not allow a governor or an LG to assume a role that is conferred by citizens on the elected government of the state. If the domineering Modi government at the Centre is unwilling to recognize and respect this distinct separation of powers, then the Supreme Court must send it a telling reminder before it is too late.
Post-script: Post-script: Between 2019 and 2022, Jagdeep Dhankar was West Bengal governor where he was engaged in repeated altercation with chief minister Mamta Banerjee. In August last year, Dhankar was moved out of Kolkata and elevated to Vice-presidentship. As a DMK spokesperson sarcastically remarked during a tv debate, “A precedent has been set: openly challenging non-BJP state governments is seen as an achievement for a governor which brings its own rewards!”
(The writer is senior journalist and author. Mail: [email protected])