Delhi must save democracy

Delhiites will have to decide whether a party that has been accused of subverting the popular will through the appropriation of administrative services and other means deserves their vote

When the popular will is repeatedly subverted, all issues in an election must pale before the necessity of exorcising the spirit of absolutism afflicting a democracy. This thought should determine the preference of Delhiites when they vote, on February 5, to elect their new Assembly.  Neither welfarism nor corruption nor governance nor ideology should matter to them.

The most recent examples of the subversion of the popular will were the advertisements two of the Delhi government’s departments issued, declaring that the Mukhyamantri Mahila Samman Yojana and the Sanjeevani Yojana did not exist, cautioning people against registering for the two schemes. The registration process was kickstarted after the Aam Aadmi Party, continuously in power since 2015, announced it would pay R1000 a month to women above 18 years, and that the amount would be doubled to R2100 in case it won the people’s mandate again. The second scheme promises to defray the hospital expenses of senior citizens.

Democracy it cannot be in which the bureaucrats negate schemes a popularly elected government announces. Yet Delhi’s bureaucrats can defy their political masters because of the dubious legal architecture the Union government of Narendra Modi has created.

It all began in May 2015, when the Centre issued a notification transferring to Delhi’s lieutenant-governor the subject of administrative services, effectively giving him complete control over bureaucracy. This was in violation of Article 239AA of the Constitution, which bestows upon the Delhi government jurisdiction over all matters in the state and concurrent lists other than public order, police and land. The Centre’s appropriation of administrative services, through the L-G, was challenged in the Supreme Court, which, on May 11, 2023, ruled in the Delhi government’s favour.

The Supreme Court’s logic in doing so was that a “democratically elected government needs to have control over its administration.” This is because such a government can “perform only when there is an awareness” among officers of the “consequences which may ensue, if they do not perform.” After all, it is through bureaucrats alone the “responsibility of the government of the NCTD [National Capital Territory of Delhi] to give expression to the will of the people who elected it” can be realised, the Supreme Court reasoned.

Nine days later, hours after the Supreme Court closed down for summer vacation, the Central government, at night, promulgated an ordinance to snatch away the administrative services from the Delhi government. The ordinance, subsequently enacted as an Act, created the National Capital Civil Services Authority, with the chief minister, the chief secretary and the home secretary as its members. They were to jointly take all decisions on the posting and transfer of bureaucrats. Differences between them were to be settled by the L-G, the Centre’s representative, thus reducing to irrelevance the chief minister’s role in the Authority.

Since the Centre became the arbitrator of the fate of bureaucrats, it was inevitable for them to do its bidding rather than the Delhi government’s. Failing miserably to vanquish the AAP in 2015 and 2020, the Bharatiya Janata Party, in pique, has tacitly encouraged bureaucrats to scuttle the popular schemes through which former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has acquired formidable popularity.

For instance, it was only after the Supreme Court’s intervention that funds were released, after a delay of several months, for the AAP government’s Farishtey Dilli Ke scheme, which provides free medical treatment to road accident victims at city hospitals. The stalling tactic of bureaucrats is cited as the reason for medicine shortage in the AAP’s hugely popular mohalla clinics.

The Centre also subverted the popular will by altering the constitutional relationship between the chief minister and the L-G. Since 2015, the two had been locked in a perennial dispute over who possesses what powers. The Supreme Court, on July 4, 2018, ruled that the L-G must act on the “aid and advice” of the chief minister on all matters other than those pertaining to public order, police and land. The elected Delhi government, the Supreme Court ruled, must inform the L-G about its decisions, but his concurrence was not required for implementing them. The chief minister’s primacy over the L-G was restored.

Yet, roughly a year after the AAP returned to power in February 2020, the Centre amended the Act governing the Delhi government. It said the Delhi government was now the L-G, whose opinion must be sought before any executive action, based on decisions of the Cabinet or an individual minister, is taken.  The amendment did not prescribe a time limit for the L-G to offer his opinion. He could inordinately delay executive action from being taken, even sabotaging it through his silence.

The motive behind disabling the Delhi government was to demonstrate to Delhiites that the AAP is incompetent, and that it would be self-defeating for them to vote for the party that the Modi government will not allow to function. Delhiites, on February 5, will be faced with a choice—whether to accept the BJP’s insidious logic or unambiguously express their disapproval of the imperious disdain with which their mandate has been treated. Their choice will determine 
our democracy’s health.

The writer is a senior journalist and author of Bhima Koregaon: Challenging Caste

Send your feedback to [email protected]

The views expressed in this column are the individual’s and don’t represent those of the paper

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!