In a significant legislative move, the Lok Sabha successfully cleared the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023, which has replaced an existing ordinance pertaining to administrative control within the city. This development, however, was not devoid of drama, as the parliamentary session became a stage for opposition protests and an eventual walkout. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, a prominent advocate for the Bill, utilized the platform to launch a scathing verbal assault on the opposition ranks, alleging that their concerns were less about democratic principles and the public’s well-being and more about political alliances. Amidst the passionate debates, a startling disruption orchestrated by Sushil Singh Rinku, the solitary representative of AAP in the Lok Sabha, resulted in his suspension for the remainder of the session. This incident underscored the intensity of the discussions surrounding the Bill.
The opposition, which had previously been vocal about their demand for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement on Manipur, made a significant return to the parliamentary proceedings, marking their participation during this session. Union Home Minister Amit Shah seized the opportunity to criticize what he perceived as a paradoxical stance by the opposition, accusing them of selectively seeking the Prime Minister’s statements only during critical legislative moments. This pointed commentary from Shah highlighted the ongoing tension between the ruling party and the opposition over matters of governance and democracy.
Amit Shah, while staunchly defending the Bill, underscored the Union Territory status of Delhi, emphasizing that Parliament’s authority extends to formulating legislation related to it. He referenced a legal interpretation by the Supreme Court that necessitated the introduction of this legislation to address service-related aspects specific to Delhi. Responding to allegations of central interference in Delhi’s governance, Shah cited Article 239AA, which grants the Centre a degree of administrative intervention in the city’s affairs. The Home Minister contended that the functioning of the Delhi government under the AAP’s leadership had prompted the need for this intervention.
Shah further critiqued the prior Delhi administration for deviating from established protocols and procedures in managing Cabinet matters, asserting that these circumstances warranted the formulation of new regulations. He also alluded to a Supreme Court ruling that recognized the distinctive status of Delhi and provided elected governments with control over bureaucrats. However, Shah pointed out that actions taken by the Delhi government to transfer officials occurred before the matter had been conclusively settled by the Court.
It’s worth noting that the AAP-led government in Delhi has chosen to legally challenge the constitutional validity of the ordinance, with the Supreme Court referring the matter to a Constitution Bench for further deliberation. This legal backdrop adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing debate over the governance of the Indian capital.