Vinod Rai

How – and Why – the CBI’s Reputation Fell to Where It Is Now

An excerpt from ‘Rethinking Good Governance: Holding to Account India’s Public Institutions’.

In October 2017, Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat-cadre police officer, was appointed to the number two position in the organisation [Central Bureau of Investigation] by a panel headed by the central vigilance commissioner. During the selection process itself, Alok Verma, the director, raised doubts about the integrity of the officer as he was being probed for his role in a case against a Gujarat-based company. However, Verma was prevailed upon to appoint Asthana. This appointment was subsequently questioned in court by an NGO. The court decided not to interfere. Verma was not convinced of Asthana’s suitability for the assignment and hence did not repose trust in his deputy.

Asthana did not take kindly to this, and cast aspersions on Verma for thwarting investigations in important cases. He reported this to the CVC, who sought details from the CBI about Verma. But these details were not forwarded by the CBI, which claimed that this was an attempt by Asthana to intimidate officers investigating those cases.

Vinod Rai
Rethinking Good Governance: Holding to Account India’s Public Institutions
Rupa Publications, 2019

This led to multiple allegations being levelled by these functionaries against each other and the matter escalated to the level of the cabinet secretary. The allegations against Verma were that he had accepted a consideration of `20 million while investigating one Satish Sana, a Hyderabad-based businessman, in a case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, who is being probed for tax evasion and money laundering.

Asthana further alleged that Verma had even scuttled the attempt to arrest Sana and that Verma had removed him (Asthana) from the team probing high-profile cases, including that against former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram. The CBI soon filed an FIR against Asthana and consequently a deputy superintendent of police (DSP), who was working with him, was arrested. In the complaint leading to the FIR, the allegation was that Asthana had extorted money from Sana.

Soon, both officials approached courts to safeguard themselves against coercive steps. At this point, the government intervened and sent both officers on leave while divesting them of their powers. It is also believed that their offices were sealed and searched.

The CBI director has a fixed tenure of two years, as mandated by the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narain case of 1997. He can be removed only by the committee that appoints him. It has been contended that sending the director on leave is tantamount to flouting the directions of the Court in the Vineet Narain case. Verma contested his removal on this ground in the Supreme Court. The Court asked the CVC to investigate the allegations against Verma. The investigation was supervised by a retired Supreme Court judge.

After perusing the report of the CVC, on 8 January 2019 the Court passed orders reinstating Verma and asserting that transfer of the director without the consent of the selection committee negated the legislative intent to ensure the independence of the CBI. The Court directed the PM-led committee to meet and examine whether Verma needed to be removed. As for Verma, it directed that he would ‘cease and desist’ from taking policy decisions and would take only routine administrative decisions.

Also read: Modi-Led Panel’s Decision to Remove Alok Verma as CBI Chief Is Fundamentally Flawed

The PM-led committee then met on 10 January 2019 to consider the CVC report against Verma. While the leader of the Opposition, a member of the committee, felt that the charges had not been proven and that he should be reinstated with full powers and allowed to complete his tenure, the other two members (the PM and the judge representing the CJI) decided he should be removed.

He was thus removed and posted as the director general of the fire services. Verma did not take up the new post and resigned (his scheduled date of completion of tenure was 31 January 2019). What adds a comical twist to the entire episode is that the officer temporarily vested with interim charge to manage the agency also has aspersions being cast on his background!

Alok Verma outside the CBI office. Photo: PTI/Files

Such adverse media attention for an agency that comes to the mind of any person whenever there is a sensational case has impacted the credibility of the institution. The taint will take a long time to erase. How did this come to pass?

First, the seeds of discord were sown when, despite there being a full-time director, another person was appointed as a special director. The CBI is a police organisation and, like all uniformed services, follows hierarchy very closely and is bound by it. Posting a special director and entrusting him with all high-profile cases sowed the seed of dissonance in this hierarchical structure. The problem was compounded by the fact that the director had red-flagged the incoming person’s integrity. That aspect should have been investigated, and only after clearing the incoming person of all doubt should the decision to accept or reject Asthana have been taken.

It is speculated that in the tradition of the CBI being the handmaiden of the government, an attempt was made to keep Asthana as an ‘acting director’ for a while (since he was perceived to be the ‘blue-eyed boy of the powers that be’), and then have him appointed as director through the high-ranking three-member committee. Not being able to do so and in some ways being forced to appoint Verma, whose credentials in terms of playing footsie with the government were not very clear, the decision was taken to keep Asthana as the number two and entrust him with sensitive cases. According to some less-than-charitable interpretations, there was also a school of thought which believed that Asthana could be relied upon to keep an eye on the director. Thus, ab initio, the course which was set out was suspect in its ‘intentions’.

Also read: Why Opposition’s Claim of Central Agencies Being Misused Rings True

Second, even if one were to believe that Asthana was appointed with the best of intentions, the government should have stepped in at the first sign of disquiet and ensured that he was either moved out or provided a sinecure where he could mark his time until the superannuation of the incumbent director. He could have then tried his luck for the top job. It is a well-known fact that, administratively, the CBI is under the DoPT, of which the PM is the minister in charge. Even though the Supreme Court may have ordained that the CBI will be under the superintendence of the CVC, ultimate control is exercised by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Hence, the intervention from that level should have come much before the rot began to spread. Either the potential for it becoming a conflagration was underestimated or it was believed that it would play itself out. Both aspects were belied, resulting in huge embarrassment for the government.

Third, the CBI is not new to political intervention or its actual lack of autonomy. These factors have coexisted for decades, and successive generations of directors have perfected the art of managing to live with them. Increasingly, there is a decline in the professional capability of officers being appointed to the agency with a preference for ‘loyal’ officers. This has become a dangerous trend, resulting in prosecutions proving to be increasingly faulty. As a result, acquittals are the order of the day. The most recent instance was of seventeen accused being let off by the CBI special trial court in the high-profile 2G spectrum allocation case.

Fourth, it is a sad reflection on the competence and independence of an agency when the Supreme Court orders that an investigation by an incumbent central vigilance commissioner be supervised by a retired judge. It somehow smacks of lack of trust in the agency. What is the status of a retired judge to be able to oversee the investigation being conducted by a central vigilance commissioner, a statutory appointee? Of course, there have been instances of court-supervised investigations, but those have been supervised by an active bench – an acceptable situation. Such oversight by a retired judge definitely does not augur well for the CVC. It undermines the dignity of an institution and should have evoked a request for reconsideration by the incumbent commissioner.

Vinod Rai was the 11th Comptroller and Auditor General of India. He is presently the chairman of the Supreme Court-mandated Committee of Administrators of the BCCI and a distinguished visiting research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He has authored Not Just An Accountant, and co-edited Seven Decades of Independent India. Rai was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 2016.

Kanhaiya Kumar Breathes Winds of Change in Begusarai

Kanhaiya’s biggest achievement is that he has forced people to focus on ideas instead of identity; to focus on the candidate instead of the party.

Begusarai goes to vote today in the fourth phase of the 17th Lok Sabha elections. This year, the constituency has been in the spotlight all because of one name – Kanhaiya Kumar.

For a long time, Begusarai’s politics has been dominated by money-power and muscle-power. Caste, religion and regional equations have largely determined how people vote. The stories which earlier used to undergird elections in Begusarai were centred around which criminal was contesting and how polling booths were being captured.

This time, however, Begusarai has stolen the nation’s attention for other reasons.

Despite being colloquially known as ‘Bihar’s Leningrad’, Begusarai has elected only one CPI member of parliament – in 1967, but continues to be strongly influenced by the political left in assembly elections. In the 16 general elections the constituency has witnessed, MPs have been chosen from the Congress eight times.

In 2014 – for the first time – a candidate from the BJP won from Begusarai. The BJP’s decision to field Dr Bhola Singh – a veteran of Bihar politics, who was also interestingly a part of the CPI, Congress and RJD before joining BJP – paid its dividends.

However, Singh’s sad demise in October 2018 left the constituency without a representative.

But this time, it’s not party loyalties that dominate people’s concerns. Kanhaiya has compelled those who lost faith in the CPI to focus on him as an individual candidate instead. The intense media scrutiny under which he has been has only added to his fame.

A number of known faces, including lyricist and singer Javed Akhtar, actors Prakash Raj and Swara Bhaskar, and comedian Kunal Kamra have made their way to the narrow lanes of Begusarai’s villages, bringing with them conversations and appeals.

Spending a week here in the run up to polling day offered this writer a number of insights.

Pitted against the BJP’s sitting MP from Nawada, Giriraj Singh, and the mahagathbandhan’s popular face, Tanveer Hasan, Kanhaiya has fought on the slogan: “Neta nahi beta (son, not politician.)”

Indeed, posters splashed across the constituency reflect this too. A billboard welcoming travellers into Beehat, a village in Begusarai, reads: “Kanhaiya Kumar ke gaon mein aapka swagat hai! (Welcome to the village of Kanhaiya Kumar.)” Even ads in the local dailies read: “Notetantra ke khilaaf, loktantra ke sath! (Against money power, in support of democracy!)”

The result has been heartwarming. The question on everyone’s mind this time has not been “which caste does he belong to?” or “which village he hails from?”

The question this time has been: “Do you agree with him? Do you know what he stands for?”

Win or lose, I think this is already Kanhaiya’s biggest achievement: that he has forced people to focus on ideas instead of identity; to focus on the candidate instead of the party.

Men, women and children have been huddled over cups of chai, animatedly discussing ideas of the nation and development. The women have started to disagree with the men. The children, peering over their data-enabled cell phones, have started forming opinions of their own.

There are no binaries. There are multiple people who want both Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the centre and Kanhaiya at their home.

Yet, in him, they see a voice.

This is not to say that caste or identity politics have disappeared entirely from the minds of voters here – that would be a highly ambitious claim.

It is only to say that if Indian democracy throws up candidates capable of shaping narratives, the public is willing to discuss them too.

Shruti Sonal is a freelance journalist and a poet, who writes with equal fervour about language and politics. Find her on Instagram and Twitter @shruti_writes.

Featured image credit: PTI

From Dusty Books to Glowing Screens – How Urdu Got a Digital Revival

Sites like Rekhta and online communities like Kaafiya are bringing Urdu out of the shadows and making it accessible through

“Kabhi yunhi safar karte, agar koi musafir sher padh de Meer, Ghalib ka
Woh chahe ajnabi ho, yahi lagta hai woh mere watan ka hai
Badi shaista lehje mein kisi se Urdu sun kar
Kya nahi lagta ke ek tehzeeb ki awaaz hai, Urdu”

Sometimes while travelling, if a fellow passenger reads out a poem of Meer or Ghalib

Then even if he’s a stranger, he seems like he’s from my home country,

In a very polite manner, when you hear someone speak Urdu

Doesn’t it feel like it is the sound of culture, Urdu”

This is how Gulzar, one of the most loved poets, lyricists and screenwriters of our times, wound his love for Urdu into a poem.

Urdu has been more than just a language in the Indian subcontinent; it has been a way of life and tehzeeb. Its appeal and influence has cut across classes and regions, being spoken by poets, princes and paupers alike. By adopting elements of Persian, Hindi, Turki, Braj, Gujri and Awadhi, it reflected the syncretic and accommodating nature of the culture in the region.

Urdu was in many ways at the forefront of the freedom movement in India, giving rise to memorable slogans like ‘Inquilab Zindabad’, rousing poems like ‘Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna’ and Allama Iqbal’s ode to the nation ‘Sare Jahan se Acha’. In fact, it is Iqbal’s birthday on November 9 that is celebrated every year as World Urdu Day.

Partition and exile

However, Urdu was as much scarred as it was shaped by the freedom movement. As schisms in the society grew, language too became a victim of communalisation. Despite Gandhi’s attempts to show the unity between Hindi and Urdu and promotion of ‘Hindustani’, they became associated with communal identities. Hindi was Sanskritised and Urdu Persianised. The latter became linked with Muslim identity, and as many of the Urdu writers went to Pakistan, it lost its gleam in India. The final nail in the coffin came when it was declared as the national language in Pakistan. Thus, like many people who were uprooted and became refugees overnight, Urdu too went into exile after Partition. This was lamented by Manzar Bhopali in his poem:

“ye nāzoñ kī palī thī ‘mīr’ ke ‘ġhālib’ ke āñgan meñ

jo sūraj ban ke chamkī thī kabhī mahloñ ke dāman meñ

vo shahzādī zabānoñ kī yahāñ be-anjuman kyuuñ hai

vatan meñ be-vatan kyuuñ hai?

That which grew up in the garden of Mir and Ghalib

That which shone like a sun in premises of palaces

That which was the princess of languages,

Why is without an association here?

Why is it in exile in its own country?”

A digital revolution

However, recently, Urdu seems to be spreading its wings again. The revival of the language and its growing popularity, especially among youth, has been the result of a digital cultural revolution of sorts. Over the past five years, several new platforms to promote Urdu have cropped up. They don’t just post and promote the language online, but also organise festivals, mushairas and storytelling sessions to reach the masses. Together, they have taken Urdu from its snug place in historical books to the digital stage.

At the forefront of the revolution is Rekhta, an organisation which has grown rapidly in five years since its inception in 2013. It began as an attempt by Sanjiv Saraf, businessman and cultural entrepreneur, to create an online repository of Urdu poetry at rekhta.org. Just over five years after it started, the site now contains over 36,000 ghazals, 6,000 nazms, and 25,000 shers by more than 3,400 poets.

To make them more accessible, the pieces are interactively available in Roman, Devanagari and, of course, Urdu scripts on the website. Rekhta also has an ever growing collection of audio poems, videos and e-books.

Rekhta not only aims to promote Urdu poetry but the language as a whole. On its website and various social media pages, it posts a new word of Urdu daily, along with its meaning and usage. The organisation has also started an Urdu learning programme focusing on learning through the original script, which sees massive participation, especially from non-Muslim youth.

The ‘word of the day’ on November 14, 2018. Credit: Rekhta/Facebook

Seeing such a widespread positive response from people, in 2015, Saraf launched Jashn-e-Rekhta, an annual festival held in Delhi every year since then. It has only grown with its each successive edition, and seen participation from the likes of Gulzar, Javed Akhtar, Nida Fazli and Munawwar Rana. The festival includes performances, recitations, mushairas, panel discussions, debates, conversation on films, calligraphy workshop and haats designed in a style reminiscent of pre-partition Dilli.

Another smaller but popular organisation is Kaafiya. Yaseen Anwar founded the Poets Corner in 2013 and later Kaafiya in 2015. ‘Kaafiya’ is a play on the word ‘Qaafiya’, which refers to the rhyming device used in forms of Urdu poetry like ghazals and nazms. Anwar began the page on social media and later expanded to organising poetry festivals.

One of the poems on Kaafiya’s page. Credit: Pradeep Goyal/Kaafiya

However, his goal, he says, is to “form a close knit group of Urdu lovers in the capital, who promote and pursue the language in depth”. Thus, the page is used as a platform to get in touch with people from all walks of life interested in understanding the language and its literature. This group of people then meets in person, and conducts reading sessions and mushairas. He also conducts a “poetry darbaar” to reach out to a wider audience outside the national capital. He insists that “this is a great phase for lovers of Urdu” as the language has only grown in popularity and reach in the last five to ten years.

So what lies ahead for the language in the future? Yaseen is greatly optimistic. “I hope Delhi becomes the capital of Urdu literature again, as it once was, and the some of the greatest poets come out of here”, he says, with a smile.

Shruti Sonal is a freelance journalist and a poet, who writes with equal fervour about language and politics. Find her on Instagram and Twitter @shruti_writes.

Featured image credit: Marium Ali, The Herald

Kejriwal and Modi Must Accept that Hybrid Power is a Fact of Life for Delhi

The former CAG writes that the ongoing stalemate in Delhi is traceable not only to the political tussle between the AAP and BJP governments in the city and Centre but also the Home Ministry’s hasty intervention on a sensitive issue

The former CAG writes that the ongoing stalemate in Delhi is traceable not only to the political tussle between the AAP and BJP governments in the city and Centre but also the Home Ministry’s hasty intervention on a sensitive issue

Lt. Governor of Delhi Najeeb Jung (left) and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal (right).

Lt. Governor of Delhi Najeeb Jung and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal during the swearing-in ceremony earlier this year. Credit: PTI

The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, divided the country into four administrative divisions. The erstwhile provinces of colonial British India became the Part A states. The former Maharajas’ kingdoms (better known as the princely states that had accepted British paramountcy) became the Part B states. Part C states were the centrally-administered areas. Part D comprised one territory, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Part C states and the Part D territory were to be administered by the President through Chief Commissioners. In the Part D territory, unlike the Part C states, there was no provision for a legislative body. Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and the erstwhile princely states of Ajmer, Coorg, Bhopal, etc. constituted the Part C states.

Soon, however, the demand for redrawing state boundaries on the basis of linguistic identities emerged. As a consequence of this demand, the government set up the States Reorganisation Commission in 1953. Based on the recommendation of this Commission, 14 States and 6 Union Territories (UTs) were created. In this reorganisation, Delhi ceased to exist as a Part C state and was converted into a UT from 1 November 1956. The legislative assembly was abolished, and the territory came under the direct administration of the President in 1957.

The Fourteenth Amendment Act of 1962, inserted as Article 239A, provided for the creation of legislative assemblies and council of ministers for some of the UTs such as Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. Delhi, along with Chandigarh and Lakshadweep were excluded from this provision.The public of Delhi continued to demand an elected government.

Following such a demand, the Delhi Administrative Act was passed in 1966, setting up the Metropolitan Council. This was a deliberative body of 56 elected- and 5 nominated-members. It was headed by a Lieutenant Governor (LG), with an executive council comprising one chief executive councillor and three executive councillors. This council was a kind of hybrid body which was set up, as a compromise formula, with no legislative powers. It was mandated with only advisory powers in the governance of the city.

Power-sharing is hardwired

The demand for a full-fledged legislature for Delhi, therefore, continued. In 1987, the government set up the Balakrishnan Committee to review the administrative issues pertaining to the city’s governance. In its report submitted in 1989, this committee recommended that whilst Delhi might continue to be a UT, there should be a legislative assembly and a council of ministers with appropriate powers to deal with ordinary issues of administration.

Postage stamp issued to commemorate Chaudhary Brahm Perkash, the first Chief Minister of Delhi

This recommendation led to the passing of the Government of the National Territory Act of 1991, which came into effect in 1992. This Act inserted special provisions in the Constitution for administering the national capital territory (NCT). Article 239 AA was inserted, stating that the legislative assembly shall have powers to make laws for the whole or part of the NCT, except matters with respect to Entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State List and Entries 64, 65 and 66 of that List if they are linked to Entries 1, 2 and 18. This in effect meant that the Legislative Assembly of Delhi would have no powers over such matters and personnel as public order, police, officers and high court servants and over the land of NCT. In effect, the Legislative Assembly of Delhi has considerably limited authority, compared to the legislative assemblies of full-fledged states.

The reality, therefore, is that Delhi is a full Union Territory. By definition, a UT is centrally administered. The President administers it through the LG, the administrator, who is centrally appointed. The legislature and the council of ministers, conceded to Delhi in response to popular demand, are in place merely to aid and advise the LG. Obviously, such aid and advice are not binding on the LG. The Delhi government can pass laws on various areas barring police, public order and land. Separately, Article 73 of the Constitution mandates that executive power is co-extensive with legislative power.

So the elected government of Delhi does not have executive powers in these three areas which are reserved for the Central government, implying the LG. Even in respect of the state list, the LG has to give his assent to bills passed by the legislature. The LG enjoys the power to withhold assent, keep bills for as long as he likes or send them to the Union government or the President for his or her consideration.

The constitutional reality is that the legislature of Delhi does not have full legislative powers, unlike in other states. So, any party that comes to power and forms the government in this UT must be conscious of this harsh reality, irrespective of whether they win 70 out of the total 70 seats in the Assembly, or a mere 36 giving them a thin majority. Delhi’s present Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has come to power riding a massive wave of popular support and winning 67 of the 70 seats. Yet the constitutional reality is particularly relevant to the current situation in Delhi.

An ugly spat

Constitutions, whether written or unwritten, do not always lay down every little detail in the administration of a state or a country. It is expected that those who operationalise the constitution will be politically mature people and do so in good faith, free of any political underpinning. The hybrid nature of the set-up in Delhi has come up for controversy in the past too. The very first Chief Minister of Delhi, Chaudhary Brahm Parkash, had to resign after a rather bitter tussle for power with Chief Commissioner Anand Datthaya Pandit in 1955. Parkash had termed that as actually a fight with the then Union Home Minister Govind Ballabh Pant. In fact, it is widely believed that it was that fight which led to the abolition of the Assembly. That was the time when Delhi was still one of the Part C states.

What we now witness as a rather ugly spat between the present Delhi government and the LG (read Central government) is a natural corollary to how the hybrid nature of Delhi’s constitutional position can lend itself to anomalous interpretations. An appointed LG will most certainly have a mind-set which is very different from an elected government or chief minister.

Nevertheless, if the goals of both are good governance, development and improvement of societal welfare, ordinarily there would be no friction in governance. It is only when populist claims, playing to the gallery and the lack of an administrative model/roadmap are coupled with certain degrees of political machinations and inept handling of sensitive issues, that the cordiality in official dealings and the spirit of give-and-take become a casualty. The result: unproductive wrangling, negative output of human- and time resources.

THEY CAN’T AFFORD TO WAIT: Children in Kirti Nagar, Delhi. Photo: Michał Huniewicz, CC 2.0

The loser in the process is the public at large – their felt needs get a low priority, projects get delayed and the declared goals are not achieved. The net result in the entire imbroglio is an erosion of trust between the people and their elected government – maybe at the Central, maybe at the state level. The ongoing tussle that the people of Delhi are so haplessly witnessing is a consequence of inadequate application of a robust, apolitical and objective mind-set single-mindedly dedicated to the welfare of the people and to providing the state with an ethical governance-model.

In the present case, the routine appointment of a purely temporary ‘caretaker’ chief secretary acted like a spark that lit the tinder box which was waiting to be ignited. If wise and more mature counsel had prevailed, the Chief Minister could have gone along with Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung’s recommendation of having a ‘stand-in’ temporary chief secretary appointed on the basis of the time-tested golden principle of seniority – a cardinal principle in governance. On the other hand, if the elected government had indeed very strong reasons for not accepting the most-senior officer, maybe a more flexible approach based on meticulous consultation and negotiation could have settled the matter to the satisfaction of both authorities.

Hastily drafted notification

This obviously did not take place; or the situation did not develop to the satisfaction of one or more parties. All these led to the rather rigid interpretation of the constitutional provisions, thereby forcing decisions which in the long-run tend to become irritants that could finally lead to a conflagration.

The proverbial last straw was the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on 21 May 2015, ostensibly clarifying that “Services” in the Delhi government fall within the purview of the LG, thus, the Central government. The constitutional legality of this notification is being contested, and it will be adjudicated upon by the courts. Its timing certainly was ill-advised and ‘suspect’, as observed by the High Court of Delhi.

Also read: The Modi Government is Trying to Create a Constitutional Crisis by Rajeev Dhavan

The bone of contention is simply this: whether the Delhi government has unfettered authority over its bureaucracy or does it have only recommendatory jurisdiction which it should exercise in a power-sharing arrangement with the LG. This is an issue requiring an interplay of the spirit of cooperative federalism. Much can be said or is being said on both sides. Who was recalcitrant or rigid is an issue on which we need to pass judgment now.

The notification sought to clarify that the democratically elected Delhi government does not have authority over its own public services which, therefore, fall within the purview of the Centre-appointed LG. The operative part of the notification reads: “The President hereby directs that – (i) subject to his control and further orders, the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi shall, in matters connected with ‘ Public Order’, ‘ Land, ‘Police’, and ‘ Services’ as stated herein above, exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the central govt. to the extent delegated to him, from time to time, by the President. Provided, the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi may in his discretion, obtain the views of the Chief Minister of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in regard to the matter of ‘Services’ wherever he deems it appropriate”.

This notification appears to have been hastily issued by the Central government to establish its power over the public services in the state of Delhi. Control over the civil services was an issue which, in its own manner, was chugging along. The confidential reports of all IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officers, for example, are written by the chief secretary. The CM does review these reports but the final authority accepting them is the LG.

Now you see me, now you don’t

Parliament at dusk. Credit: Kartikeya Kaul/Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

Thus the chief minister has his say, since the All India Service officers of the AGMUT cadre (as the common cadre for these states is popularly known) can be posted to any of the states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram or Delhi. This ensures that the officers are not subject to the political vicissitudes of any single elected authority. The issue in Delhi could certainly have been resolved without a hastily-drafted executive order, the intent and legality of which are being challenged.

This notification has added fuel to the fire, leading to a total breakdown of the possibility of rapprochement between Delhi’s elected government and nominated LG. The essence of the present debate is whether a notification can add a fourth subject to the existing three enumerated in the Constitution. Eagle-eyed legal professionals will argue this fact. The courts will decide.

The Home Ministry’s notification has added fuel to the fire, leading to a total breakdown of the possibility of rapprochement between Delhi’s elected government and the nominated LG.

It is not that the constitutional position of the Delhi government over some administrative matters has not created complications earlier. Nevertheless, the veneer of cordiality and mutual respect between the two centres of authority was not allowed to degenerate. Even during the tenure of Sheila Dikshit, the previous CM, who incessantly demanded full statehood for Delhi, relations with the then LG used to come under stress – though both were Congress party appointees. But a certain element of maturity and respect for each other’s positions did help to contain the differences. The phenomenon of a Chief Minister vilifying one of his own officers before a public gathering of auto rickshaw drivers was certainly a hitherto unseen low in such behaviour.

The National Capital Territory of Delhi houses foreign embassies, the President’s estate, the Parliament, the Supreme Court and such other important national and international agencies. While, it may make for good politics for any political party in power in the NCT to demand statehood, there does not appear to be any possibility of such a demand being acceded to. The Congress , as represented by Sheila Dikshit, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (now ruling at the Centre), as represented by Sahib Singh Verma and Madan Lal Khurana, had made these demands when their parties were in power in Delhi. But these parties promptly forgot the issue when they came to power at the Centre. Hence, it is not an issue which will lend itself to an easy and permanent solution anytime in the near-future. It will be in the interest of the parties who come to power to live with this hybrid structure and attempt to operate with maturity, sagacity and with the interest of the people of Delhi at heart.

Delhi needs urgent attention on infrastructure, law and order situation and issues such as cleanliness, power, water and solid waste disposal. It is the responsibility of any elected government to address these issues in right earnest within the available constitutional provisions.

Vinod Rai is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore. He is a former Comptroller and Auditor General of India

This article was originally published by the Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore