Last word is yet to be heard on Centre and Kejriwal government fight

New Delhi: In an effort to ‘increase association of Indians in every branch of the administration and gradual development of self-governing institutions, the British government brought in so-called “Montagu-Chelmsford” reforms (named after the then Secretary of State for India ES Montagu and India’s Governor General Lord Chelmsford) and amendments were made in the Government of India Act of 1919.  

Under the amended act, subjects of administration were divided into two categories - central and provincial. In the name of reforms in provinces, the governor with the aid of ministers in the legislative council would administer the subjects categorised as provincial. The proportion of elected members in the provincial councils was increased to 70 per cent. But the central government of the Governor General still had the power to legislate for the whole of India. The Governor General could override any provincial bill. 

Also read: Delhi services minister Saurabh Bharadwaj locks horns with chief secretary

DD Basu in his masterly work “The Introduction of the Indian Constitution” says the reforms of 1919 failed to fulfil the aspirations of Indians.

The purse strings remained out of reach of ministers.

Basu further says and just note this, “It was impossible for any minister to implement any progressive measure for want of funds and together with this was the further fact that the members of Indian Civil Service, through whom the Ministers were to implement their policies were recruited by the secretary of state (of India) and were responsible to him and not the ministers.”

Civil service is key to implementing the agenda of governance of any government. And in 1919 when the Britishers allowed so-called reforms, they didn’t give control of civil service to so-called elected ministers and obviously the effort was bound to fail. 

Sounds a bit familiar? Now let's understand this in democratic and independent India. 

What’s the crux of the fight between the centre and Delhi government - the control of services in the national capital which in effect means who has the power to post and transfer civil servants in the city-state? 

Ostensibly, the Supreme Court has settled the issue in favour of the Delhi government as a five-member bench said in its 106-page judgment that in a democratic form, the real power of administration must reside in the elected arm of the state and the Delhi government led by Aam Aadmi Party’s Arvind Kejriwal will have legislative and executive control over administrative services except in the matters of public order, police, and land.

So it is all settled then? No, not yet. Both the centre and Delhi government are back in the top court again the AAP government’s effort to remove services secretary Ashish More. Even if the More issue is settled, the centre and Delhi government are also sparring over the nomination of aldermen in the municipal council of Delhi in the Supreme Court. 

But let's look at what used to happen in the earlier Delhi government led by Sheila Dixit when the centre had a BJP government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The Delhi government get its quota of IAS officers (IPS officers were out of its purview and will continue to remain so as Delhi Police is under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs) and the decision to appoint them to various departments was left with the Delhi government. For all practical purposes, the system worked well barring a few instances when the Delhi CM would rush to meet Union Home Minister to get a stalled transfer (out of Delhi) of a particular officer. 

But Arvind Kejriwal is not Sheila Dixit and the current BJP government cannot be compared with the Vajpayee government as well. 

It's pure politics. 

The BJP has to limit Kejriwal’s appeal within Delhi. If Kejriwal remains occupied in Delhi, he won’t get time to increase his footprint in the rest of India. 

Political and legal battles over babus and aldermen are part of the same scheme of things. And they will continue till the 2024 general elections, to say the least.

The Supreme Court is yet to clarify many more aspects despite stating that services are under the Delhi government. 

The centre may still bring in legislation or an ordinance to curtail the Delhi government’s newly granted power to transfer and post senior bureaucrats as there is no bar under the new SC judgement over the parliament passing a law in this regard.

It seems the last word on who controls transfers and postings of officers in Delhi is yet to be heard.