| The crime, the Covid, the politics and the potholes: Capital Letters — Keeping track of Delhi's week, one beat at a time, through the eyes and words of HT's reporters, with all the perspective, context and analysis you need. Good morning! Seldom do two days towards the end of a week have such lasting implications for three separate states across the country. It was a decisive week for Maharashtra, as the Supreme Court refused to reinstate Uddhav Thackeray’s government but pointed out a host of procedural errors that followed his displacement. It was a decisive week for Karnataka, which clung to its pattern of voting out the incumbent administration and voted the Congress in with a clear majority in a record-breaking mandate for the state and the party. But, it could be argued that, above all, it was a most decisive week for Delhi – one that clarified fundamental questions surrounding its character as a capital; over its peculiarity as both a city with an elected government and a Union territory; around its place within a federal structure as well the extent of this federalism; and, most of all, about the role of elections, electors, and the elected government. A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the elected government of Delhi has control over bureaucrats assigned to departments under its purview, a verdict that comes as a major victory for the Arvind Kejriwal government (probably one of their most important landmarks yet) at a time when his administration has been locked in a bruising fight with the Union government for control of the Capital. What, put simply, does this mean? Essentially, the elected government of Delhi (currently run by the AAP), can now appoint, remove, and transfer officers in the city’s administration. The government couldn’t do this earlier, since the power rested with the lieutenant governor of the city. What this meant, according to the AAP, was that the officers who were tasked with implementing the state government’s programmes weren’t answerable to the state government at all. This, in turn, created two divergent power centres, and Delhi found itself in a peculiar situation where the elected government wasn’t able to impose its own authority in the city that voted it to power. This, consequently held up several big-ticket programmes (the Delhi Shopping Festival, the city-wide revamp of markets and so on) as well as routine, everyday administrative processes (paying doctors and diagnostic labs for their work at Mohalla Clinics). The order laid down that officers working in all departments – except those relating to public order, land and police – fell within the administrative and legislative control of the Delhi government, capping a dispute that began with a notification issued eight years ago by the Union government, and led to a protracted court battle with split verdicts. “If a democratically elected government is not allowed to control its officers and hold them to account, then its responsibility towards legislature and the public is diluted. If an officer is not responding to government, the collective responsibility is diluted… if officers feel they are insulated to the elected government, they feel they are not accountable,” said the five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, in a unanimous verdict. But where did this conflict begin? A brief history In 2015, the BJP-led Centre in a notification laid down that the Delhi government will have no powers over services as is the case under Entry 41 of State list under the constitution, which gives state assemblies the prerogative on state public services. Some scene-setting here is crucial. Congress governments under Sheila Dikshit governed Delhi for 15 years, till December 2013, when an AAP-Congress coalition with Arvind Kejriwal at the helm ended that streak. Kejriwal, of course, resigned 49 days later, in February 2014, citing resistance to the Jan Lokpal Bill being passed. When the services notification was issued, on May 21, 2015, the AAP government in Delhi was just about three months old, after storming to power with 67 of 70 seats in the state, entirely blanking out the Congress and leaving the BJP with just three seats. From February 2014 till the state elections a year apart, Delhi was under President’s rule. During this time, in May 2014, the BJP was voted in at the Centre, ending a decade of Congress rule. So, Delhi in February 2015 found itself in a situation it hadn’t been in for over 15 years – with separate parties in charge at the Centre and the state. Add to this the important caveat that Delhi is officially known as the National Capital Territory, with governance powers split between the elected state government and the Centre. Of course, this separation wasn’t a problem when the Congress helmed both the governments. Red-hot red tape As tensions spilled over in the Capital (featuring allegations by then chief secretary Anshu Prakash in 2018 that he was assaulted by MLAs at the chief minister’s residence), and after repeated battles between the office of the LG (led by Najeeb Jung, then Anil Baijal and then VK Saxena, who’s the incumbent), a July 2018 Supreme Court verdict seemed that it would balm the tensions. On July 4, 2018, a five-judge bench of the top court led by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, observed that the subjects of “land”, “police”, and “public order” rested with the central government, but that the rest of the subjects were under the elected government. That verdict did nothing to balm tensions in the city, as it transpired. That bench, however, did not clarify the question of the government’s “services” department, which runs the bureaucracy and bureaucrats. “[The top court bench] placed the issue of the legislative competence of the Delhi Assembly over ‘services’ before a two-judge bench. This bench delivered a split verdict in 2019, and the matter was referred to a three-judge bench. The onus of the decision ultimately came before a Constitution bench,” writes HT’s Alok KN Mishra in this detailed piece for HT’s Premium offering. In 2021, the Union government sought to put an end to the debate by passing the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) act in Parliament, making the LG’s nod mandatory prior to executing any policy approved by the Delhi government’s council of ministers. Crucially, the amendment said the term “government”, would, for Delhi, mean the LG. However, the Supreme Court’s May 11 verdict put paid to these interpretations. “The LG is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of NCTD in relation to matters within the legislative scope of NCTD. As we have held that NCTD has legislative power over “services” (excluding ‘public order’, ‘police’, and ‘land’) under Entry 41 in List II, the Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the decisions of GNCTD on services, as explained above,” it said. “An unaccountable and a non-responsive civil service may pose a serious problem of governance in a democracy. It creates a possibility that the permanent executive, consisting of unelected civil service officers, who play a decisive role in the implementation of government policy, may act in ways that disregard the will of the electorate,” it added. What lies ahead Arvind Kejriwal lauded the Court’s verdict and in effect said the judgment liberated him and his government, which had “its hands tied” by the 2015 notification. Importantly, he warned of a major overhaul in the state’s administration, underlining that his government would stamp its authority on officers and weed out those occupying “redundant positions” or those underperforming. His government showed remarkable alacrity to this effect, removing the state’s services secretary Ashish More from his position hours after the SC verdict. Kejriwal even went so far as to say that several officers who hindered the state government’s work will be identified. Residents of Delhi though can expect more streamlined governance, fewer showdowns, and better implementation of services. Officials in the Delhi government said a host of projects that were held up due to this government-officers showdown will now take off. Ideally, one can hope for a better, more balanced and well-contoured compact between the LG’s office and the elected government. It’s in the best interests of the national capital, which has for eight years been caught in the crosshairs of a gratuitous battle. | 
