August 3, 2023
Kalyan Banerjee’s speech on The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023 in the Lok Sabha
Sir, on behalf of my Party, I am strongly opposing the present Bill, The Government of National Capital Territory
of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023. Allow me to speak.Sir, it is apparent from the speech of the hon. Home Minister that it is a targeted legislation and this targeted legislation has been made to whittle down the powers of the present State Government elected by the people of Delhi. It is a malicious legislation now. It is very clear from the speech of the hon. Home Minister. Our Constitution does not permit any targeted legislation or any malicious legislation. This is bad. This cannot be done for whittling down the power. I would like to quote an important sentence from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act. It reads: “The Committee went into the matter in great detail and considered the issues after holding discussions with various individuals, associations, political parties and other experts and taking into account the arrangements in the national Capitals of other countries with a federal set-up and also the debates in the Constituent Assembly as also the reports by earlier Committees and Commissions.”This is one of the objects.The Sixty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution has an important consequence for the special status of Delhi as the National Capital Territory. It emerges from all the speeches of Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly that India adopted a federal model in which the Union and the States were meant to operate within their assigned legislative domains. The States are not subservient to the Union. The majority of the 2018 Constitutional Bench judgement held that while NCTD could not be accorded the status of a State, the concept of federalism would still be applicable to NCTD. Therefore, the concept of federalism, structure of federalism as applicable to all the States is applicable to Delhi also. The Constitution Bench judgement itself says so. Let me talk about the most crucial things of the Bill which are really violative. Many points have been raised and I am not going to repeat them. I will speak about power and impinging provisions of this legislation. Power has been taken; total control has been taken by the Central Government. As we know, all IAS officers are appointed by the Central Government now under this Bill. The Chief Secretary will be appointed by the Central Government. He will be a man of the Central Government. Clause 45E talks about the Authority which is called the National Capital Civil Service Authority. Who will be its Members? The Chief Minister will be a Member; the Chief Secretary will be a Member; the Home Secretary will be a Member. Decisions will be taken on the basis of majority of votes of the Members. Therefore, who is indirectly, really having the control? The Central Government is having the control. Does it not destroy the concept of federalism itself? Is it not against the wishes of the people of Delhi? The hon. Home Minister spoke about 2015. All right! If in 2015 they had done wrong things, if they had committed illegal things, why was the same Party has been elected by the people of Delhi a second time? In a democracy, people’s verdict is final;people’s mandate has to be accepted.If the Central Government makes an allegation or anyone makes an allegation against anybody, and if people say that someone is correct and he should govern them, the Central Government should hear the voice and wishes of the people. That has not been taken care of. Therefore, you are taking away absolute power. You need all powers. You say, “I, the Central Government will decide”. Everything will be decided by them. Who are sitting in the Authority? It is the Chief Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretary. Correct? What is fundamental to democracy? Regarding fundamentals of democracy, there are triple chains. The first chain is that the civil service officers are accountable to Ministers. The second chain is that the Ministers are accountable to the Parliament and Legislatures. The third chain is that the Parliament and Legislatures are accountable to the electorates. This is a chain. This is a Parliamentary Democracy. How can you say that a Minister who is answerable under our Parliamentary system, is equated with the Chief Minister or any other Minister in a statute? In a statute, how can it be possible? It destroys the fundamentals of democracy itself.
Hon. Chairperson, Sir, the judgment in the Government of NCT of Delhi versusthe Union of India, in Civil Appeal No. 2357 of 2017, was delivered by the hon. Supreme Court of India on 11th May, 2023. It has been referred by the hon. Home Minister. The hon. Minister has referred to two or three paragraphs. I will request him to also read paragraph no. 117 of the said judgment, which is laid down in the law. I quote it: “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.” Hon. Chairperson, Sir, which one is important? It is not important that the Central Government is having the power. It is also not important that the State Government is having the power. The important thing is the will of the electorate. The will of the electorate has elected the State Government. The will of the electorate has defeated the Ruling Party at the Centre in Delhi. That has to be accepted. The will of the electorate shall be implemented by all the Civil Servants. That is what you are destroying.In a democratic form of Government, the real power of administration must reside in the elected arm of the Stateand the elected Government needs to have control over its administration. These are not my words. Let me say it very frankly that theseare the words of theFive Judges’ judgment of the hon.Supreme Court. If a democratically-elected Government is not provided with the power to control the Officers posted within its domain, then the principle underlying the triple-chain of collective responsibility would become redundant. In paragraph no. 121, it has been said by the hon. Supreme Court in the 11th May judgment that Article 239AA, which conferred a special status to NCTD and constitutionally entrenched a representative form of Government, was incorporated in the Constitution in the spirit of federalism, with the aim that the residents of the capital city must have a voice in how they are to be governed. It is the responsibility of the Government of the NCTD to give expression to the will of the people of Delhi who have elected it. I pause here to ask a question. Who is bound by it? The State or the Centre? It is the State who is bound by it. The State has to give an explanation. If anything happens, who will give the
answer? They are answerable to the State Legislature. They are not answerable to this Parliament at all. Therefore, it is destroying the power itself.It has also been said, ‘Therefore, the ideal conclusion would be that GNCTD ought to have control over ‘services’, subject to exclusion of subjects which are out of its legislative domain — subjects like, land, police, etc. have already been mentioned. If services are excluded from its legislative and executive domains, the ministers and the executive who are charged with formulating policies in the territory of NCTD would be excluded from controlling the Civil Service Officers who implement such executive decisions’. This Bill destroys the concept of federalism itself in NCTD. Hon. Chairperson, Sir, I have quoted what Dr. Ambedkar has said. In status, a State is not inferior to the Central Government.No. Periphery may be different. But they are not subsumed into the Central Government. Therefore, this Bill is destroying the federal character. It is not that today AAP is here in Delhi, BJP is at the Centre and the Congress is there or not. It is not that. Five years or seven years or ten years are not important for the country. What we do now here will have an impact after 25 years. Our next generations will question as to what their previous generations have done. Do you want to destroy the federal characterof this country? That is an important question today I want to pose. Why are Governors so active in non-BJP ruled States? Why are Governors not active in BJP ruled States? Why is Governor acting in contravention of Articles 162 and 163 of the Constitution? Sir, I will tell you about these provisions under Article 361, that is Protection of Presidents and Governors and Rajpramukhs. These are given in the Constitution. The makers of our Constitution never thought that a regime will come in which the Governors appointed by the Central Government would violate the Constitution in States where the ruling party of the Central Government would not be there. The makers of the Constitution would not have given the protection to the Governors that no case can be initiated against them. They are taking advantage of that. They are absolutely taking advantage of that because no case can be initiated against them. In every non-BJP ruled State, it is happening. In a non-BJP ruled State, the Ruling Government, this Government, is sending the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women, they are sending the Chairperson of Human Rights Commission. Why is the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women, why is the Chairperson of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission, why is the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission did not get any time in the last four months to visit Manipur? What were these Chairpersons doing when these kindsof offences occurred? Since they are saying, let me tell you in this House itself. I will conclude. I said that in nonBJP ruled States, the Governors are acting beyond the Constitution. Sir, Iam not using the word. Iam using the expression. Why a person appointed under Article 53 of the Constitution of India can act in complete breach of the Constitution? Why the Chairperson of the National Commission of Women have not gone to Manipur? Sir, I will tell you. Kindly allow me to use this expression. I have said that it happened in a non-BJP ruled State but I must say with honesty. Let me be candid before you. I have seen one Governor, that is, the Governor of Manipur Sir, I am not criticising her conduct. Kindly hear me. I am praising her conduct. I am praising her conduct.Then, I must say that one person appointed by the Central Government under Article 153 of the Constitution of India is really acting at Manipur. Our team went there. She has said it to us very clearly that the Chief Minister of the BJP Government is not…Sometimes you should have some degree of tolerance, Sometimes, you should have patience. This is the reason due to which the whole of India is burning.…(Interruptions) It is due to your non-tolerance and arrogant attitude.
