HT Archives: Delhi gets its own assembly as Parl approves move

Parliament on December 20, 1991, put its seal of approval for setting up of a 70-member legislative assembly and a seven-member council of ministers for Delhi with the adoption of the Constitution Amendment Bill by both the Houses.

The Lok Sabha passed the National Capital Territory Bill, giving effect to the Constitution Amendment Bill. The 74th Constitution Amendment Bill was then adopted without much discussion in both Houses. While the Lok Sabha voted it by 349 votes to nil, the Rajya Sabha approved the Bill with 142 members supporting it and one lone member giving his dissent.

The bill, piloted by home minister SB Chavan in both the Houses, provides for a 70-member assembly without powers to legislate on matters of public order, police, and land. Unlike the states where the governors have the powers to appoint chief ministers, the chief minister in Delhi will be appointed by the President and ministers shall hold office at the pleasure of the President.

The National Capital Territory Bill contains certain special provisions which includes barring the assembly to introduce any bill except on the recommendation of the Lieutenant Governor in respect of imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax. The bill also stipulates that the laws made by Parliament would prevail upon those made by the Delhi assembly.

The National Capital Territory Bill also stipulates that a fresh delimitation of constituencies, distributing the seats assigned to the Delhi Legislative assembly under the new dispensation will be undertaken by the Election Commission. The home minister has already given an assurance to both the Houses that elections to the Delhi Assembly will be held within six to eight months. The 56-member Delhi Metropolitan Council will now stand abolished as it will be replaced by the Assembly.

The Delhi assembly, according to the provisions of the bills, shall adopt one or more languages in use in Delhi or Hindi as the official language.

While the salaries and allowances for the council of ministers and staff are expected to be around ₹20 crore, there would also be a corresponding savings of about ₹10 crore with the abolition of the Delhi Metropolitan Council. The bills stipulate that this expenditure shall be drawn from the consolidated fund of the National Capital Territory.

Replying to the discussion on the bills, Chavan said after a great deal of consideration, the government had decided on this type of set-up for Delhi. If Delhi was given full statehood, as demanded by the BJP and others, then it would not be constitutionally possible for the Centre to intervene in any matter relating to law and order, land and public order and public health. He observed that the kind of money being spent on the Capital by the Centre would not be available to Delhi, if it gets full Statehood. It was the responsibility of the Centre to keep the national Capital in good condition and, therefore, he urged the members not to continue their agitation for full statehood to Delhi.

He told the Lok Sabha that the government would soon come up with a bill after considering the second part of the Balakrishnan Committee report and relating it to the status of Delhi assembly to that of Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi Municipal Committee and other agencies. Although these agencies are autonomous in status, a decision would have to be made as to how the Delhi assembly could have a control in their affairs.

Replying to criticism made by the members on the powers of the council of ministers, the home minister said the final authority to decide on a matter of dispute between the council of ministers and the Lt Governor will be the President, and in the meantime, who is to have authority is a smaller detail.

The minister also rejected a suggestion made by Era Anbarasu (Congress) that provision should be made for the President or Parliament to nominate at least two members to the proposed assembly with voting powers.

Chavan suggested that a healthy convention should be built up by the assembly which should become a model for all other assemblies and once everybody decided to go ahead with the conventions, there would be no room for apprehensions.

As for delimitation of constituencies, he said he would go in for it in a scientific manner. The government would have to go by the latest census figures and take the total population and divide it by the number of seats.

With the setting up of the assembly, the Delhi Metropolitan Council will cease to exist.

The Constitution Amendment Bill is based on the report of the Balkrishna Committee submitted to the government in December 1989 on the future administrative set-up of Delhi.

Between 1952 and 1956, Delhi had a legislative assembly and the chief minister was Brahm Prakash Yadav.

Even at that time, public order, police and land were under the control of the central government.

The Balkrishna Committee also felt that it would be “against the national interest” to make Delhi a full-fledged state.

An official amendment calling it the “National Capital Territory of Delhi” was adopted. The bill had used the nomenclature “National Capital Territory” only.

Sajjan Kumar (Congress), and Madan Lal Khurana and Tara Chand Khandelwal (BJP) had also moved amendments to this effect.

Initiating discussion on the bill, Madan Lai Khurana said that his party was supporting the measure “half-heartedly” and “under protest” as the proposed structure of the Assembly was such that it would be too weak to meet the aspirations of the people of the Capital.

He blamed the Congress for committing breach of faith of the people of Delhi by not providing Statehood despite being in the power at the Centre for many years. He said former Prime Minister VP Singh who headed the National Front Government committed fraud on the people on the issue.

Sajjan Kumar said the erstwhile Jan Sangh, forerunner of the BJP, had condemned as “white elephant” the legislature assembly of Delhi way back in 1952. He said it was the Congress government which had given the assembly to Delhi that time.

He also faulted the BJP for not getting the demand of statehood met from the national government which was surviving on that party’s support.