As the BJP turned up the heat on a “Constitutional crisis” in Delhi with Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal still in Enforcement Directorate custody a week after his arrest, and AAP minister Atishi saying any move to impose President’s rule in Delhi would be an act of “political vendetta”, The Indian Express has learnt that discussions around that option have “gathered pace” at the highest levels.
On Thursday, Saxena wrote to Kejriwal regarding a case of alleged sexual harassment in a Delhi government medical college, noting that the transfer of the medical college principal was held up by him since February 14. Saxena also noted that Health Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj had written to him directly, instead of routing his note through the Chief Minister.
Sources said that Saxena’s letter, illustrating how governance matters are being affected, stated that any note “on a significant issue be submitted to me, through the Honourable Chief Minister”.
Meanwhile, North East Delhi BJP MP Manoj Tiwari said Kejriwal’s arrest and an “internal war” in AAP on a possible successor were symptoms of a Constitutional crisis.
“A Constitutional crisis has arisen in Delhi… Aam Aadmi Party is currently going through an internal war because Arvind Kejriwal is trying to make his wife the Chief Minister, and the legislators are not ready to accept her. Therefore, there is a Constitutional crisis in Delhi today, and due to Kejriwal’s drama, the people of Delhi are distressed,” Tiwari said.
Bharadwaj, on the other hand, told The Indian Express that the Lt Governor was “very keen on running Delhi”.
“Imposing President’s rule gives him (Lt Governor) that window. His aspiration is to probably run the state without contesting elections. The dismissal of a PIL demanding the removal of Kejriwal as Chief Minister in the Delhi High Court today, however, is a setback for them,” he said.
Delhi’s unique Constitutional scheme allows imposition of President’s rule under Article 239AB. Legal experts on the Centre’s side believe that the Article offers a significantly lower threshold for imposing President’s rule in Delhi as compared to any such move in a state.
According to sources, the conditions to invoke Article 239AB through the President, which requires a prior report to be submitted by the Lt Governor to the Centre, are under discussion.
The only time President’s rule under Article 239AB was invoked in Delhi was in 2014 after Kejriwal had resigned 49 days into his first stint as Chief Minister as his government was in minority. It is learnt that the Centre is now looking at the 2014 President’s rule as a distinct case since it was a hung Assembly with no prospects of fresh government formation.
With a majority government in place, the discussion is centred around sub clause (b) of Article 239AB, which provides that in the case of Delhi the President can suspend the operation of Article 239AA (conferring special status on Delhi and outlining its governance) if she is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for proper administration of the Capital.
Atishi said, “The President may exercise the power under Article 239AB only if she is satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the administration of Delhi NCT ‘cannot’ be carried on in accordance with Article 239AA or the GNCTD Act, or if it is ‘necessary or expedient’ to exercise the power ‘for the proper administration of the National Capital Territory’… Neither condition is met in this case.”
Sources said two sections of the GNCTD Act would be key in the event of imposition of President’s Rule: Section 50 which deals with the duration of the move and Section 51 which pertains to administrative expenses when such an order is in force.
Section 50 states that every order made by the President under Article 239AB “shall expire at the end of one year from the date of issue of the order”; it also allows the President to extend the duration by a period “not exceeding two years from the date of expiry of the order” subject to the condition that extension beyond one year shall be approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.