A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is currently hearing a dispute between the Delhi government and the Centre over the control of services. Almost five years ago, another Constitution Bench ruled in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led state government in a similar tussle.
Yet the Centre had revived the issue, and last year a three-judge bench headed by former Chief Justice of India NV Ramana referred a matter involving the tussle between Delhi government and the Centre to a five-judge Constitution Bench that is hearing it currently. It seems like we are going round and round in legal circles, but that in itself reflects how consistently federal powers are being challenged in India.
The Centre argues that it needs powers in Delhi on account of it being the ‘face of the nation’. But since there is an elected government in Delhi, that also seeks jurisdiction over the bureaucracy. It was during the ongoing hearing that Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was arguing for the Centre, “Then what is the point of having an elected government in Delhi at all if the administration is to be carried out at the beck and call of the Centre?”
Why indeed have elected governments in states if the Centre’s nominees do not respect the federal structure of the Indian Constitution. Shift from Delhi, a Union Territory, to a state in the south, Tamil Nadu. Here Governor RN Ravi has shown little regard for the elected government led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).
The ongoing tussle with the Governor has exploded into a full-blown crisis. Convention demands that at the start of an assembly session, the Governor read a text prepared by the state government. Ravi deliberately skipped portions of the address that referred to EV Ramasamy (Periyar) who is seen as the founder of the Dravidian movement, and in his lifetime rebelled against Brahminical dominance and caste inequality, with symbolic acts and views that challenge all religions per se. Naturally, Periyar would be perceived as a historical/ideological enemy by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which is in power at the Centre, and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
The Governor also left out references to former chief ministers K Kamaraj of the Congress, and CN Annadurai and M Karunanidhi of the DMK, besides BR Ambedkar. He also chose not to mention the Dravidian model of governance, and the intent to maintain communal harmony. His omissions were quite extraordinary besides his controversial and uninvited comments about changing the name of Tamil Nadu. He is also sitting on several Bills passed by the state legislature.
The Governor has stepped on fault-lines that have been papered over in a state with a very distinct political history and iconography. He is ill-serving the Union of India, in apparently trying to combat the ideological positioning/history of the state government, that is elected by the people, while the Governor is appointed by the Centre. In Tamil Nadu, it stokes sentiments that in the long run would damage the BJP project in the state and do not seem to be of political utility, although they may reinforce ideological points. Besides, it’s against accepted norms and conventions, and in this instance the Centre should consider recalling the Governor.
The conduct of the Tamil Nadu Governor is part of a trend seen with several Governors in Opposition-ruled states. We have also seen signs of this in Kerala in stand-offs between Governor Arif Mohammad Khan and the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left front government, and earlier in Maharashtra in Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari, who oversaw several attempts at government formation by the BJP that eventually succeeded last year after a split in the Shiv Sena.
It’s ironical that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who as Chief Minister of Gujarat often railed against the attitude of the Centre, then calling it Delhi Sultanate, should now preside over a dispensation that so clearly seeks to undermine the power of state governments.
This is happening in a political scenario where the BJP’s political record in state elections does not match its performance in national polls. Yet even after defeat or below par results in some states, there is now a clear pattern of the Governor’s Office being used to block, frustrate, or just challenge the elected regime’s authority, and capacity to rule.
This has reached extraordinary levels in Delhi, a Union Territory-State where the BJP has been clearly defeated in repeated elections yet is determined to assert its authority. Now this inclination has expanded to a full state such as Tamil Nadu.
Both Delhi and Tamil Nadu are full majority governments that should not have to face this daily struggle to rule, enact policies, and implement them. These are not numerically fragile regimes, and yet today they feel the heat and might of individuals who are chosen for unelected offices.
These are trends that must be flagged when we measure indices of democracy. The federal structure is under attack, quite frequently and consistently in India today, extending from Delhi to Chennai.
(Saba Naqvi is a journalist and author.)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.