A question between citizen and state

The Delhi High Court has given Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal a shot in the arm in his confrontation with the Centre over the issue of the constitutional jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Delhi in relation to the government of India.

The bruising fight was on two issues of significance: Can the Delhi government book a functionary of the Delhi police (as it has sought to do) — which reports to the Union home ministry and not the Delhi government — on the charge of corruption; and who is empowered to appoint Delhi’s top civil servants — the Chief Minister or the Lieutenant-Governor, the Centre’s representative in the UT? Mr Kejriwal has called a special two-day session of the Assembly to debate these. It has been taken for granted (under the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1994) that being a UT, the domains of police, public order, land, and the disposition of the officers of the all-India and UT civil services come under the direct charge of the Union government.

Arising from this position, friction has arisen between previous Chief Ministers of Delhi and the L-G, but tricky situations were handled diplomatically. Mr Kejriwal has emerged as a public figure of a different mould, however, and he went all-out to sharpen the contradiction through provocative acts.

As it happens, he has met with success in the first instance. As the Chief Minister and his Cabinet were celebrating their first 100 days in office last Monday, the High Court held that Delhi police personnel could be pulled in for graft by the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Delhi government. Going further, the High Court ruled a Union notification, issued last week to reiterate that police, land and the services were the Centre’s exclusive domain and not that of the state administration, to be “suspect”.

It is a moot question whether the view of the High Court will survive a challenge in the Supreme Court. If it does, Parliament may be required to suitably amend the law that guides the relationship between the Centre and the NCT of Delhi. The AAP government would have cracked a very old riddle even if the exercise does not necessarily lead to full statehood for Delhi, which even the BJP has promised over the years.

On the other hand, even if the view taken by the apex court diverges from that of the high court, the question will remain if the ACB of the government of Delhi, a duly elected authority, should remain a mute witness if Delhi voters are subjected to oppression through acts of corruption by cadres of the Union government posted to the national capital, for example the Delhi police. This really is a question between the citizen and the state.