Jung’s quitting no solace for CM Kejriwal

Sometime in August, controversial BJP MP, Subramanian Swamy tweeted: "In my opinion, this LG of Delhi Mr. Jung is unsuited for this high post. He is another 420 like Kejri. We need a Sangh person in Delhi." Of course, the Sangh itself ignored it and Jung did not react.

With Lt Governor Najeeb Jung's decision to quit the office on Thursday, its a guess-why/what - time in the capital. The one doing furious head-scratching now should be Jung's bitterest rival and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal who just could react "Jung's resignation is a surprise to me. My best wishes in all his future endeavors," he said in his tweet.

Earlier, in a letter, Jung thanked the Prime Minister for all the help and cooperation during his tenure and also thanked the people for their support and affection, particularly during the one year President's Rule in Delhi. He did not fail to mention his thanks to the Arvind Kejriwal. He cited the reason for quitting as a desire to go back to “the first love, which is academics."

Kejriwal himself never liked him and over his longstanding acrimony he nurtured against Jung, the Chief Minister tweeted on September 26, 2015: “Removing him will not help. His successor would also do the same if PMO kept interfering… Real solution is PMO should stop interfering in Delhi.”

It is not known whether Jung really wants to go back to the academics, but against the backdrop of Swamy's tweet in the past, it could be safely assumed that the latter was certainly working against him uninterruptedly as is his wont.

For his part, Swamy is known to be one of the reasons behind RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan’s decision not to extend his three-year stint which ended in the last September. An appointee of the previous UPA government, the 53-year-old Rajan too had announced that he would not seek a second term and go back to academia.

The announcement followed personal criticism from a section within the ruling BJP, especially parliamentarian Swamy who said Rajan was “mentally not fully Indian” and should be sacked.

A question doing rounds is whether Swamy is again behind the decision of Jung to quit at this juncture?
Jung's tenure was marked by rancor and almost daily wordy duels with Kejriwal's Government. Kejriwal chose to target Jung for everything calling him a stooge of Narendra Modi.

Rumor mills began working overtime soon after the news broke out. While a section sought to explore whether Jung could be the replacement for Hamid Ansari whose term is set to be over soon, a section close to the Sangh dismissed it away as a "figment of imagination."

However, this argument does not explain why should Jung quit his position in the first place. But, the Centre now must be hard-pressed to find a suitable candidate in the place of Jung who literally gave Kejriwal sleepless nights in the process of upholding the supremacy of his office over Delhi affairs.

The Centre never pressured Jung to quit the office as it did in case of some of the Governors elsewhere in the past. Jung was left untouched despite being an appointee of the previous UPA Government.

Whoever may be the successor of Jung, there is little to suggest that the power struggle between the Delhi Government and the Lt Gov's office would end. The reason for the tussle between the two now is over the demand of full statehood.

While almost all parties, BJP included, have repeatedly promised full statehood for Delhi, there are no signs of the promise being translated into constitutional mandate. In effect, Delhi continues to be in Schedule I of the Constitution along with other Union Territories (UTs). Articles 239 and 239AA of the Constitution, as well as the Government

of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, clearly say that Delhi is a UT, albeit with an Assembly.
Even the High Court in its judgment has pointed to the fact that even after the Constitution (69th Amendment) Act, 1991, which inserted Article 239AA providing for special provisions for the NCT of Delhi, Delhi remains a UT, and is not like a full state.

Kejriwal knew pretty well, when he was sworn in as CM of Delhi, that he was unequal to other CMs' as far as powers to administer are concerned.

His bitter fight over the same has not helped the situation much and the people of Delhi are always caught in the crossfire due to the confrontationist attitude of the CM. Under the constitutional scheme, the Delhi Assembly has the power to legislate on all subjects except subjects like law and order and land.

But its power is not absolute, or clearly defined as in full states.Forget the division of power to legislate enunciated by the Constitution under the Seventh Schedule — which deals with subjects under the Central, State and Concurrent Lists — in the case of Delhi (and Puducherry), the law made by Parliament on any matter prevails, even if the state Assembly passes another law on the same subject.

But even a careful reading of Article 239 AA isn’t enough to clear the ambiguity over how much power the government of the NCT of Delhi actually has. The Transaction of Business of the Government of NCTD Rules, 1993, too has much scope for misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

These Rules, among other things, grant too much discretion to the L-G to interfere and, if he so wants, impede the functioning of the Delhi government on every issue. The Rules also provide that in cases where he is unsure of what his stand should be, the L-G is duty-bound to consult the central government through the Union Ministry of Home Affairs “before exercising his powers or discharging his functions in respect of that matter”.

Kejriwal should know better that in the light of these issues, the quitting of Jung does not come as a much relief to him. If any, the Centre could install a much more hardliner than Jung to queer the pitch for the Delhi CM further.