Delhi as a ‘full state’ will lead to anarchy

The political and constitutional status of Delhi, as India’s capital, has long been a matter of controversy. In the decades after the city was flooded with hordes of Hindu and Sikh refugees in the wake of Partition in 1947, some politically-conscious individuals began to raise demands for it to be given statehood. It took several years, though, after the Centre, when Rajiv Gandhi was PM, appointed a committee to examine various issues related to Delhi’s administration and recommend measures for “streamlining (its) administrative setup”. After exploring all possible angles in depth, the committee said “Delhi should continue to be a Union territory” but be provided with a Legislative Assembly and a council of ministers responsible to such Assembly. What should be noted is that it was to “streamline the administration” of the growing metropolis, that also happened to be the nation’s capital. It was not meant to encourage ambitious satraps to unleash a movement to cause “administrative dyarchy” that would stir “political anarchy” in the Indian capital.

The committee also recommended that “to ensure stability and permanence, the arrangements should be incorporated in the Constitution to give the national capital a special status among Union territories”. There was, therefore, no change in Delhi’s status as a Union territory. Understandably Delhi, which earlier had a metropolitan council and executive councillors, was renamed “National Capital Territory of Delhi” as the Government of National Capital of Delhi Act 1991 was passed by Parliament under Article 239AA. This law acknowledges in its title that Delhi is India’s “national capital”. Thus, although Delhi has, like other full-fledged states, a legislature and a council of ministers with a chief minister at its head, this doesn’t make Delhi a state; it remains a Union territory, one of seven such, which happens to be the seat of the Central government.

Now, once it is understood Delhi is a Union territory and not a state, it is imperative to examine Article 239AA that “created” Delhi in its present form, resembling some sort of “Union territory-with-a-mixture-of-state-texture”, in conjunction with Articles 239 and 239A. The genesis goes back to the Government of India Act 1935, under which “provinces like Delhi, Ajmer, Coorg, British Balochistan, Panth Piploda, Andaman and Nicobar Islands” were run directly by the Central government, through the chief commissioner appointed by the Governor-General. Post-1947, the administrative head of a Union territory became the L-G in place of the chief commissioner and the appointing authority changed from the Governor-General to the President of India. Thus, Article 239 of the Constitution stipulates that “save as otherwise provided by Parliament by law, every Union territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify”. Now, if one re-reads and synchronises Article 239 with Article 239AA, which created “local legislatures or a council of ministers, or both, for certain Union territories”, the scenario doesn’t change because whatever way one looks at it, Delhi’s status as a Union territory (not a state) remains unchanged. At best, Delhi could be seen as an experimental amalgamation of a state and UT, making it a unique Union territory.

After studying Articles 239 and 239A, even a layman will find Article 239AA, which created Delhi’s present status, contains “special provisions with respect to Delhi”. And the language thereof, under no stretch of imagination, gives any scope to regard Delhi as anything other than a Union territory, the control of which lies with the Central government, with the L-G as its face and chief administrator.

Let us, therefore, give some credit to our much-maligned politicians of yesteryears. No doubt some local leaders always wanted Delhi as a full-fledged state, but there was another section which sensed the futility of changing the status of the nation’s capital from a Union territory to a state. Understandably, this latter category’s foresight and wisdom ensured that Delhi doesn’t become a source of cancer in the form of a “state within a state”. Indeed, if Delhi ever becomes a full-fledged state, it is certain to have an adverse political fallout, with the real possibility of a constant clash between the Centre and state, given the common geography with overlapping jurisdictions. From tax to land, police stations to sales tax offices, anarchy is assured. In addition, with the presence of high-profile diplomatic representatives from 200-odd nations and international bodies scattered around the jurisdiction of the Centre and state areas, some are bound to emerge as “kingmakers” akin to 18th-19th century players, and some others as silent “state breakers” of contemporary India.

Delhi as a state, unlike the other 29, will therefore be a lot different, purely for the demography-geography mismatch. Delhi’s full statehood may mean some “advantages” for local residents, it will cause greater “disadvantage” for the other 29 states. Delhi as a “full state” can only come at the expense of India’s unity and the national interest.

As Delhi is akin to the country’s “control room” or its “operations centre”, its control must remain with the Central government, and all other authorities, public institutions or municipal bodies should be subject to its overall directions. It may perhaps be best if Delhi were to revert to its original status as a Union territory. The writer is a Supreme Court advocate. The views expressed here are personal.