Once again, the Delhi government of Arvind Kejriwal finds itself locked in a battle with the Centre. With the Union Home Ministry returning 14 Bills passed by the Delhi Legislative Assembly in the course of one year, another round of confrontation is in the offing. The Bills have been returned for want of compliance, with the stipulation that the Centre must grant its ‘prior assent’ before they can be introduced in the Delhi Assembly. In its response, the Delhi government has cited Section 26 of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, that says no Act can be held invalid for the sole reason that it did not have the previous sanction or recommendation required by the Act. Both sides can marshal arguments to support their claim, but the provisions they cite are subject to limitations. The ‘prior assent’ clause that the Centre is referring to is limited to Financial Bills, and those that relate to taxation and appropriation from the Consolidated Fund of the Capital. Whether a particular Bill requires prior assent or not depends on its subject matter. But the Delhi government is mistaken insomuch as Section 26 is applicable only to Acts that had received the assent of the Lieutenant Governor, or, in some cases, the President. But one conclusion is inevitable: the relationship between the Centre and the Delhi government is coloured by the underlying political confrontation.
The frequency with which confrontation arises between the Centre and the Kejriwal regime raises the question: is the problem with the law or with the personalities involved? Mr. Kejriwal believes that the Centre’s reluctance to grant full statehood to Delhi is at the heart of the problem. Additionally, he has often argued that the ruling BJP at the Centre and Prime Minister Narendra Modi are yet to come to terms with the Aam Aadmi Party’s resounding victory in last year’s Delhi election, and that the Lieutenant Governor is impeding his routine functioning at the Centre’s behest. The BJP wants Mr. Kejriwal to focus on governance and not to be in permanent confrontation mode. Both sides need to step back and try to repair the relationship. Mr. Kejriwal would do well to give up his penchant for framing issues that arise out of the legal limitations on Delhi’s status as if they were a malicious conspiracy against his government. Until the full statehood question is settled by Parliament, he will have to work within the existing framework. The Union government, on its part, should be more accommodative of an elected government’s legitimate functions and avoid taking a narrow legal interpretation of issues whenever a broader interpretation is possible and warranted. Working in a spirit of accommodation is the way forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment