Federal Structure

Delhi vs Centre: the question is who has control over the bureaucrats

Context: Five years ago, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court advised the Centre, acting through the Lieutenant Governor, and the Delhi government led by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to follow the path of “collaborative federalism”. The term, coined by the court in its July 2018 judgment, merely meant that the Centre and the Delhi government should lay aside their differences, show mature statesmanship in their relationship. The five judge Bench had held that the two powers —Centre and Delhi government — were “inter­dependent”.

ADMINISTRATION OF DELHI

• Delhi State Legislative Assembly having a Chief Minister came into being in 1952 under Government of Part-C States Act, 1951. (Chief Commissioners Province)

• The States Reorganisation Act, 1957, conferred UT status on Delhi, to be administered by  an Administrator appointed by President.

• Limited representative government was provided by the Delhi Administration Act, 1966.

• Constitution 69thAmendment added Article 239AA & Article 239AB which was gave constitutional status and the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT) Act, 1991 was enacted based on recommendations of Balakrishnan Committee Report.

• Election Commission under Article 324 conducts elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi.

ARTICLE 239AA - SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO DELHI

Provides that Legislative Assembly of Delhi can legislate on matters in State & Concurrent List except – State List: Entry 1–Public Order; Entry 2 – Police; Entry 18 – Land.

DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT – 2016

It declared Delhi as a UT, with LG as administrative head having discretionary powers.

SC JUDGMENT – 2018

• Reversed Delhi HC Order - stated that Article 239AA provides for representative government with Council of Ministers to aid and advice the LG except on matters he refers to the president.

• Court Focussed on Collaborative Federalism – “The Union government and the State governments should endeavour to address the common problems with the intention of arriving at a solution by showing statesmanship, combined action and sincere cooperation. In collaborative federalism, the Union and the State governments should express their readiness to achieve the common objective and work together for it.”

• If difference arises on any matter, LG has to send it to the President.

• However, LG cannot refer every matter to the President as Article 239AA (4) mentions about “any matter”.

SALIENT FEATURES OF GOVT. OF NCT DELHI ACT, 1991

• Special address by Lieutenant Governor: At the first session after election of Legislative assembly and at the first session of each year.

• Matters in which Lieutenant Governor to act in his discretion, which falls outside purview of powers of Legislative Assembly; matters in which powers or functions are entrusted or delegated to LG by the President; where LG under any law is required to act in his discretion, where LG is  to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

• President shall make rules for procedure to be adopted in the case of a difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and the Council of Ministers or a Minister.

• All executive action of the Lieutenant Governor shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Lieutenant Governor.

• Duties of Chief Minister: To communicate to LG all decisions of Council of Ministers relating to administration of the Capital and proposals for legislation, to furnish such information relating to the administration of the Capital and proposals for legislation as LG may call for & if the Lieutenant Governor so requires, to submit for the consideration of Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has been taken by a Minister but which has not been considered by the Council.

PROVISION IN CASE OF FAILURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY IN NCT OF DELHI (ARTICLE 239AB)

• President after receiving report of LG may suspend the operation of Article 239AA or any law made under Article 239AA for one year.

• President’s order under Article 239AB shall expire at  the end of one year from  the date of issue of the order and the provisions of clauses (2) and (3) of Article 356 shall apply to such order as they apply to a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356.

GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AMENDMENT (2021)

• The term “government” referred in any law made by Legislative Assembly will imply LG of Delhi.

• Rules regulating procedure and conduct of business in Delhi Assembly to be consistent with Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.

• Prohibits Delhi Assembly from making any rule to enable itself or its committees to: (i) consider matters of day-to-day administration of NCT of Delhi (ii) conduct any inquiry in relation to administrative decisions.

• The Amendment adds that on certain matters, as specified by the LG, his opinion must be obtained before taking any executive action on the decisions of the Minister/ Council of Ministers.

Lt. Governor and Delhi

Context: The Supreme Court on April 10 orally observed how can the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) act “without aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers in nominating 10 members to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. This article discusses the need for full statehood for Delhi, the capital city of India. Delhi's government has limited powers despite being one of the most populous cities in India. There is a need to view Delhi from the prism of the interests of the entire country, given that it is the national capital.

So we will cover the following aspects in this article: 

  • Some Historical perspective on administration of Delhi
  • Why Delhi should be provided with statehood 
  • Reasons against granting statehood to Delhi
  • Way forward
    • Supreme Court Verdict on Delhi-Centre Power Tussle

General Studies- II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International relations

  • Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein.

Some Historical perspective on administration of Delhi

  • Till 1992, except for a brief interlude, Delhi was a union territory under the complete control of the Government of India. 
  • Delhi was allowed its ‘statehood’ early in the 1990s, with a Chief Minister and a popularly elected unicameral legislature though the ‘State’ remained truncated in its powers.
  • But It remained in substance a union territory and in form a State, with the Lt. Governor retained as its chief executive. 
  • The Chief Minister and his Cabinet made a late entry into space where Lt Governor and several municipal corporations already existed which created friction. 
  • Many departments of the Centre, State, scores of parastatals and five ULBs (urban local bodies) providing bits of governance in the city. 
  • It could safely be asserted that Delhi has more government and less governance than any other city or state in the country

Why Delhi should be provided with statehood: 

  • Massive increment in population of Delhi 
    • In 1991, the 69th Amendment to the Constitution created the Legislative Assembly of Delhi, at a time when the city's population was much smaller. However, as of today, the city has nearly two crore people, making it one of the most populous cities in India. This growth in population has led to a demand for more representation and self-governance.
  • Limited powers of the Delhi Government: 
    • Nowhere in any democracy are two crore people represented by a government with restricted powers. Despite being one of the most populous cities in India, Delhi's government has limited powers because it is not a full state.
    • The Delhi government struggled to fight the COVID-19 pandemic because it did not have complete control over its healthcare system. The Central government controls some aspects of Delhi's healthcare, making it difficult for the state government to take timely and effective measures to control the spread of the virus.
  • The original idea behind Union Territories was just transitional: 
    • When the Union Territories were first created, the idea was to provide a flexible yet transitional status to several territories that joined India. The territories were given a certain degree of autonomy, but they were also expected to eventually transition to statehood.
    • Goa, Manipur, Himachal Pradesh, and Tripura were initially Union Territories but were granted statehood as they developed economically and politically. This shows that the Union Territory status was meant to be temporary, and statehood was the ultimate goal.
  • Equal rights for representation and self-governance
    • Providing equal rights for representation and self-governance was one of the primary reasons for the creation of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi. As the city's population grows, the demand for more representation and self-governance becomes even more critical.
    • The Delhi government has been advocating for full statehood for years, arguing that it would give the city's residents more say in matters of governance. The lack of full statehood has led to several conflicts between the Delhi government and the Central government over issues like land, law and order, and the police.
  • The need for full statehood
    • The time has come to enter the second and final stage to create the full state of Delhi. This would give the city an elected government with greater powers and more say in matters of governance, such as law and order and land management.
    • If Delhi becomes a full state, it would have complete control over its police force, which is currently under the Central government's control. This would allow the city's elected government to take timely and effective measures to maintain law and order and ensure the safety of its citizens.
  • UN report on Delhi's population
    • According to a United Nations report, Delhi's urban agglomeration will make it the most populous city in the world by 2028. This highlights the urgency of granting full statehood to Delhi, as the city's population continues to grow.
    • With a population of nearly two crore people, Delhi is already struggling with issues like traffic congestion, pollution, and water scarcity. As its population grows, the city's infrastructure and governance will come under even more strain, making the need for full statehood even more urgent.

Reasons against granting statehood to Delhi:

  • Local political ambition:
    • The demand for statehood has primarily been driven by the political ambitions of the local government, rather than a national compulsion. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has been advocating for full statehood for Delhi since it came to power in 2015.
  • National capital interests:
    • Delhi, being the national capital, must be viewed from the prism of the interests of the entire country, and not just those of the city.
    • The central government has the responsibility to ensure that the security of vital institutions such as the President's estate, Parliament, and foreign embassies is maintained.
  • Special security cover:
    • These institutions require special security cover and close coordination with centrally administered agencies such as RAW and IB, which cannot be provided by a state government.
    • In 2020, there were protests in front of the Chinese embassy in Delhi, and the Delhi Police had to coordinate with the central government to ensure the safety of the embassy and its staff.
  • Central government responsibility:
    • The institutions in Delhi are the sole responsibility of the Union government, and not of any particular state legislative assembly.
    • The Delhi Police, which is responsible for maintaining law and order in the city, comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is a part of the Union government.
  • Control over territory:
    • The Indian government must have some territory under its control and cannot be an occupant or a tenant of a state government.
    • The central government owns the land on which the President's estate and Parliament are located.
  • Reservation from regional parties:
    • Many regional parties have expressed their strong reservation towards granting full statehood to Delhi, as they believe that the national capital belongs to every citizen of the country and not just those who reside in the city.
    • The Shiromani Akali Dal, a regional party in Punjab, has opposed the demand for full statehood for Delhi.
  • Loss of advantages:
    • Statehood would deprive Delhi of the many advantages it gets as the national capital, such as the entire burden of policing being borne by the federal government.
    • The Delhi Police force has a strength of around 80,000 personnel and is responsible for maintaining law and order in the city, along with providing security to the vital institutions.

Way forward

Supreme Court Verdict on Delhi-Centre Power Tussle

  • The Supreme Court judgement in the Government of NCT Delhi vs Union of India case, overturned the August 2016 judgment of the Delhi high court, which had ruled that since Delhi was a Union territory all powers lay with the central government, not the elected Delhi government. 
  • Resolving the dispute over the demarcation of powers between the Union Government and the Government of Delhi, the Supreme Court laid down a few key principles:
    • Delhi government has power in all areas except land, police and public order and the LG is bound by the aid and advice of the government in areas other than those exempted 
    • The only exception to this rule, it said, was a proviso to Article 239-AA, which allowed the LG to refer to the President any issue on which there was a difference of opinion with the council of ministers. In such a case, the LG would be bound by the President’s decision. 
    • Delhi Lieutenant Governor cannot act independently and must take the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers because national capital enjoys special status and is not a full state. Hence, the role of the L-G is different than that of a Governor. 
  • It observed that neither the state nor the L-G should feel lionized, but realize that they are serving Constitutional obligations and there is no space for absolutism or anarchy in our Constitution.

Pennaiyar River water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka

The time limit fixed by the Supreme Court to constitute an Inter-state river water dispute tribunal for the dispute over Pennaiyar River has expired. The settlement could not be achieved through talks.

Context

  • The Supreme Court's deadline for setting up a tribunal to hear the Inter-State River water dispute over the Pennaiyar River has passed. Negotiations were unsuccessful in reaching a settlement.
  • Tamil Nadu filed a lawsuit in 2018 against Karnataka's construction of check dams on the river.
  • The Karnataka government is intending to build a dam on the Markandeya River, which is the major tributary of Pennaiyar River.
  • Tamil Nadu has thus called for the creation of an Inter-State River Dispute Tribunal.

About Pennaiyar/ Ponnaiyar River

  • Pennaiyar River is also known as Thenpannai.
  • Origin: Originates on the eastern slope of Nandidurg Mountain which is located in the Chennakaseva Hills of Karnataka and then it flows through Karnataka to enter Tamil Nadu to finally enter the Bay of Bengal.
  • As per the Central Water Commission’s Basin Report, Pennaiyar Basin is the second largest interstate East flowing river basin among the 12 basins lying between Pennar and Cauvery basins.
  • 77% drainage basin of the river lies in Tamil Nadu.
  • Bounded By: Basin of the river is bounded on the North-West and South by various ranges of the Eastern Ghats like the Velikonda Range, the Nagari hills, the Javadu hills, the Shevaroy hills, the Chitteri hills and the Kalrayan hills.
  • Rocks found in the river Basin:
  • Archaean rocks- Pyroxene granulites, Quartzite, Ferruginous Quartzite, Amphibolites, Gneiss and Hornblende biotite gneiss with younger intrusive of Pegmatite and Dolerite in the central and western parts.
  • Cretaceous formations- argillaceous, calcareous sandstone with clay and limestone.
  • Tertiary formation- sandstones and the formation of river alluvium and coastal alluvium.
  • Soil types found in its basin: Inceptisols, Alfisols, Entisols and Vertisols.
  • Pennaiyar river basin lies within the tropical monsoon zone: 1) Monsoon period- June to December and 2) Non-monsoon period- from January to May.
  • Some tributaries of the river:  Markandanadhi, Kambainallur, Pambar, Vaniyar, Kallar, Valayar Odai, Pambanar, Aliyar, Musukundanadhi and Thurinjalar.

Concerns of Tamil Nadu

  • No exclusive ownership: The flowing water from an Inter-State River is a national asset. Tamil Nadu informed the Supreme Court that Karnataka had no right to exclusively decide on how to use the Pennaiyar's waters.
  • Karnataka moved forward with the project in a sou-motu manner without disclosing the specifics of its new schemes or projects or obtaining the lower riparian state's consent, which constitutes an infringement on the rights of inhabitants. Any constructions by Karnataka will block natural flows to downstream.
  • A river also contains its tributaries and streams: The 1892 agreement governs and controls the Markandeyanadhi, which has catchment areas in both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
  • Inter-State Water Disputes Act Violation:Building reservoirs in one of the tributaries of the Pennaiyar River is a breach of the Act. 

Arguments by Karnataka:

  • Karnataka has questioned the maintainability of the suit as well as Tamil Nadu's application. At a cost of Rs 240 crores, Karnataka has been granted permission to construct the dam over the Markandeya River in order to hold 500 million cubic metres of water.
  • It argued that since 75–80% of the project had already been finished, it should be permitted to finish the remaining 20%. The Karnataka government argued that neither the conditions of the 1892 nor 1933 accords had been broken.
    • According to the 1933 agreement, Tamil Nadu does not need to provide its permission before building a dam to supply drinking water.
    • If there would be no irrigation under the agreement of 1892, the Madras Government's approval will not be necessary for the building of any anicut.
  • According to the Karnataka Government, Tamil Nadu makes up 75% of the river basin's catchment area, hence the dam built over the Markandeya River won't have much impact on the lower riparian State-Tamil Nadu.
  • Since drinking water is given the greatest priority under the National Water Policy of 2002, the Karnataka government argued that it should be permitted to proceed with the project.

Inter State River Water Dispute Act

Constitutional Provisions on adjudicating river water disputes

  • Article 262 of Constitution provides for adjudication of inter-state water disputes. It makes two provisions:
  • Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute with respect to the use, distribution and control of waters of any inter-state river.
  • Parliament may also provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such disputes.

Water under constitution

  • Water is included in Entry 17 of State List under 7thSchedule. It can be subject to Centre’s arbitration if, and only if, it involves a clear case of conflict or dispute as mentioned under Entry 56 of Union List. 
  • Entry 56 of Union List relates to regulation and development of Inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent to which such regulation and development under control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law.
  • Based on Article 262, Parliament has enacted Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (1956) & River Boards Act (1956).

Salient Features

  • Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 to resolve water dispute through (adjudication by the Tribunal) that would arise in use, control and distribution of an interstate river or river valley. The Award of the tribunal is final and binding after its publication in the official gazette of central government with having same force as the order or decree of the Supreme Court.
  • Constitution of Tribunal: When any request under section 3 is received from any State Government in respect of any water dispute and the Central Government is of opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations, the Central Government shall, within a period not exceeding one year from the date of receipt of such request, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal for the adjudication of the water dispute
  • Scheme based on Tribunal’s Decisions: Central Government may by notification in Official Gazette, frame a scheme to give effect to decision of Tribunal.

Current River Water Dispute

  • Mahadayi river- Goa, Maharashtra and Karnataka.
  • Mahanadi river- Odisha and Chhattisgarh
  • Vansadhara Water dispute- Andhra Pradesh and Odisha.
  • Krishna Water Disputes- Telangana, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
  • Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project- Haryana and Punjab

Related PYQ:

Gandikota canyon of South India was created by which one of the following rivers?
  • A Cauvery
  • B Manjira
  • C Pennar
  • D Tungabhadra

Show Answer
The correct answer is C.

Border dispute between Karnataka & Maharashtra

Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai on Wednesday said he would take steps to stop the Maharashtra government from implementing its flagship health insurance scheme in all 865 dispute border villages in Karnataka.

Background of this dispute

  • Maharashtra and Karnataka have sparred over the inclusion of some towns and villages along the state border ever since the passage of State Reorganisation Act of 1956, which in turn was based on the findings of the Justice Fazal Ali Commission, which was appointed in 1953.

  • In 1956, Mysore state (later renamed Karnataka) was formed, and differences between the state and the neighbouring Bombay state (later Maharashtra) erupted.

  • Since its creation in 1960, Maharashtra has claimed that 865 villages, including Belagavi (then Belgaum), Carvar and Nipani, should be merged into Maharashtra (these areas are predominantly Marathi-speaking). Karnataka, however, has refused to part with its territory.

Centres response

  • The Mahajan Commission (led by former Chief Justice of India Mehr Chand Mahajan) was set up by the Government of India in October 1966 to look into the border dispute.

  • It submitted its report in 1967, where it recommended that 264 villages should be transferred to Maharashtra, and that Belgaum and 247 villages should remain with Karnataka.

  • Maharashtra rejected the report, calling it biased and illogical. Despite demands from Karnataka, the Centre never implemented the report.

Exploiting public sentiments, Karnataka changed the name of Belgaum to Belagavi and made it the second capital of the state.In 2007, Karnataka started building the Suvarna Vidhana Soudha (Legislative Assembly) in Belagavi to assert its control over the region (winter legislature sessions are held here annually).  

What is the status of the border dispute now?

  • In 2004, the Maharashtra government filed a petition in the Supreme Court, staking claim over Marathi-speaking villages in Karnataka. However, the border row has been pending before the Supreme Court since 2004.

  • In 2010, the Centre in its affidavit had stated that the transfer of certain areas to then Mysore (now Karnataka) was neither arbitrary nor wrong.