Arvind Kejriwal is at it again, demanding a Brexit-style referendum on full statehood for Delhi. He is once again enacting the kind of diversionary and destructionist drama he has become an expert at. The issue was once raised in June-July 2015. June last year was not a happy month for the AAP: one of its ministers, Jitender Tomar, was arrested for allegedly presenting forged degrees; AAP MLA Somnath Bharti’s wife filed a domestic violence case against him; and the AAP government passed the controversial bill to shield 21 parliamentary secretaries from disqualification by keeping them out of the purview of “office-of profit” with retrospective effect. However, all these controversies effectively died with the call for a referendum on the statehood issue — and the focus of the media and the public completely diverted.
This time too, before it sought “professional help” for an image makeover, with a reported Rs 200-crore budget, the Delhi government raised the referendum demand. One has to admire Mr Kejriwal’s skill in causing a diversion whenever his government’s failures get exposed. There are two issues here, and must be considered apart: one, the referendum, and second, full statehood. It’s also necessary to understand the difference between a “public opinion poll” and a “referendum”. A referendum has legal and constitutional implications that give validity to public opinion on full statehood for Delhi.
To be meaningful, a referendum should involve the state machinery and institutions like the Election Commission. A referendum derives its validity from the Constitution, but there is no provision for a referendum in the Indian Constitution. The AAP’s supporters refer to Sikkim and Goa. It’s important to note that the referendum in Sikkim was held before it became a part of the Indian Union and, therefore, was then outside India’s constitutional jurisdiction. It was held on April 14, 1975, following which Sikkim became a part of India on May 15, 1975 after President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed ratified the constitutional amendment making Sikkim India’s 22nd state.
A public opinion exercise was held in Goa in January 1967 on whether it should remain a Union territory or merge with Maharashtra. But this was done only after a special law was enacted by Parliament: the Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act on December 16, 1966. Thus, whether a formal referendum can be held on any issue or not can only be decided by Parliament, not by any state government or state legislature. The death knell for the idea of a referendum came with the Supreme Court’s landmark Kesvananda Bharti ruling in 1973 which clearly stated: “The procedure prescribed in Article 368 is the exclusive procedure for amendment of the Constitution. The word ‘only’ in Article 368 rules out all other procedures for amendment.” So no law can be made for a referendum or a constituent assembly. A referendum or a constituent assembly will make Article 368 redundant.
A referendum was not accepted by the framers of the Constitution. B.R. Ambedkar said: “The draft Constitution has eliminated the elaborate and difficult procedure such as a decision by a convention or referendum. The powers of amendment are left with the legislatures, central and provincial.” The 44th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 1978 proposed the possibility of referendum in very specific situations where changes in the Constitution may impact India’s secular and democratic character, abridge or take away fundamental rights, obstruct free elections and adult suffrage, and compromise the judiciary’s independence. This was, however, struck down and the referendum idea was rejected by Parliament in the context of the ruling mentioned above, and on the ground that it will not stand judicial scrutiny.
A referendum demand is not only unconstitutional, it is also extremely irresponsible, specially coming from an elected representative. Does Mr Kejriwal support a plebiscite in Kashmir? Time and again secessionist forces have called for a referendum. By raising an unconstitutional demand, Mr Kejriwal is treading a dangerous path that will only strengthen the hand of the forces of disintegration. He is also pitching Delhi against the rest of the country. Delhi being the nation’s capital, every citizen of India has a stake and a right over it. Mr Kejriwal should clearly spell out to Delhi’s citizens the implications, particularly the financial ones, of full statehood. Delhi being India’s capital has many facilities that other states don’t.
Deputy CM Manish Sisodia has said that if granted full statehood, Delhi would get an extra Rs 5,000 crores per annum as its share of taxes. But he chose not to reveal that the entire expenditure on the Delhi police, which is over Rs 5,000 crores a year, is borne by the Centre. This year the Centre has allocated Rs 5,913.74 crores for the Delhi police in the Union Budget. By virtue of being India’s capital and a Union terrirory, Delhi has five super-specialty hospitals fully funded by the Centre. This year’s budget for these hospitals is around Rs 3,200 crores. Delhi also boasts of three Central universities funded by the Government of India. Delhi University is funded 100 per cent by the UGC, whereas other state universities are not. Full statehood may boost Mr Kejriwal’s powers, but the people of Delhi will have to bear a much bigger financial burden.
This should be clearly communicated to Delhi’s people for informed decision-making. The self-proclaimed “anarchist” CM seems to have no respect for the Constitution or no thought for the people of his city-state. To fulfil his own ambitions, he could go to any extent, even to create a situation of constitutional “anarchy”. While the AAP was given a staggering mandate by Delhi voters, this does not authorise Mr Kejriwal to ignore or undermine the Constitution and constitutional procedures.
While political parties hire PR agencies during elections, all governments have information and public relations departments to handle their publicity needs — as does the directorate of information & publicity of the NCT of Delhi, that employs around 80 people, who are paid well. Mr Kejriwal will do well to answer to the people of Delhi why he needs a private PR firm — hired at great cost to the public exchequer — before creating headlines over a “referendum” that can never happen.
