Does Najeeb Jung want to impose Emergency in Delhi?
The people of Delhi did not elect lieutenant-governor Najeeb Jung to represent them. A bureaucrat with no notable accomplishments, his last post was that of vice-chancellor, Jamia Millia from 2009.
The Congress appointed him Delhi's L-G on July 9, 2013. It cannot be said he was the best man for the job but favoured for it by influence.
After an undistinguished career as an IAS officer in the Madhya Pradesh cadre, with some expertise in the petroleum gas sector, he rose to the level of joint secretary. Post retirement in 1995, he was associated with Reliance's research foundation. Not quite the credentials for an L-G.
Inquisition
The BJP's coming to power in 2014 at the Centre presented Jung with options: resign, defend the Delhi government from the Centre or take on the role of hatchet man for Modi's government.
Governors dealing with an elected government are expected to be sages not saboteurs. The classic formulation is he should "encourage and warn" - certainly not put down, interfere and destroy.
Jung's role with the AAP government, with a mandate of 67 out of 70 Assembly seats, is to embarrass, restrict and oppose. Delhi is a hybrid - still a UT but a full democracy with some federal restraints.
The Constitution Delhi's Act of 1991 both declare that the Delhi Cabinet shall "aid and advise" the L-G. The Supreme Court says this advice is binding. Apart from police, public order and land, Delhi is like any popular government.
 |
| Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal. (Photo credit: PTI) |
Unfortunately, a Delhi High Court judgment of August 4, 2016, under appeal to the Supreme Court, seems to favour the Centre and the L-G. But this does not require Jung to avoid smooth functioning and take the elected government head on.
On August 30, Jung decided to appoint a committee consisting of former comptroller general VK Shunglu, former chief elections commissioner N Gopalaswami and former vigilance commissioner Pradeep Kumar to examine the files submitted after the High Court judgment, determine the legal violations, assign blame (including on loss the exchequer) and virtually decide by recommendation what the governor should do.
This framework is illegal, overbroad and unworthy. There is no power under which such a committee can be appointed. We do not know what its perks are?
The committee has become the hitman's hit-team. Even a lokayukta does not command this kind of power. It is like an inquisition.
On October 14, 2016, the Committee, which is examining 400 files, has been given an extension. According to the L-G's office, these files are those which the "elected government has itself admitted it has not followed constitutional provisions…. these rules, laws, conventions (and) these matters need to be regularised… (G)rave misdemeanours… are evident from these files".
A preconceived view? The L-G's office also says there is no order to stop work on any area. That is, you can continue to work without files. Is that possible? Would that no be in violation of rules and practice?
Purpose
The L-G's challenging reply seems a political street response: "If everything as claimed is according to the rule, then why is the elected government afraid of the truth coming out". This both begs and trivialises the question.
The crucial question is how can a head of state, (albeit an L-G), order an inquiry into the workings of his government without a statutory basis.
Is it really appropriate for the L-G to reduce constitutional discourse to the level of street fight and accuse his government "of taking shelter behind officers with whom the ministers misbehaved consistently for the past 18 months?"
Assuming that the L-G needs to examine the files referred to him, he cannot delegate this power to a committee, however distinguished. Why did this league of extraordinary gentleman accept this assignment?
The L-G's purpose is clearly to investigate, embarrass and bring down the democratic government. Why should a self-respecting committee get involved in this unforgiving game? Just because the committee has been given an extension does not mean it has to take it?
Emergency
There may be an insidious purpose in this. The Constitution permits President's Rule on the Delhi Government (Article 239AB) where "the administration of the National Capital Territory cannot be carried in accordance with the provisions of the Article 239AA or of any law in pursuance to that article"… or, that for the proper administration of the National Capital Territory it is necessary or expedient to do so".
There is no parliamentary supervision as for President's Rule in the states. Is this what Jung is trying to create - the grounds for an Emergency to do away with Delhi's democracy?
We, the people of Delhi, have a right to question Jung's game. If he genuinely believes that this is function that goes with his job, he needs to equally genuinely visit his delusion.
Under the Constitution, he is bound by the "aid and advise" formula which is further reinforced by the provision that the cabinet is collectively responsible to the Assembly.
He is not just controlling the excepted area of police, public order and land, but holding the elected AAP government to ransom.
One conclusion remains: Jung should be made to resign - if not by the BJP government, then on demand by the people of Delhi. Jung must go.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)