Category Archives: Federalism

India is considered as a successful federation in resolving most of its ethno-regional and linguistic problems in favour of a relatively durable political order and stability through territorial as well as non-territorial recognition of identity. On the basis of a distinction between what has been termed diversity claims and equality claims, it is argued that Indias democratic success has remained a very poor match to its federal success. Democracy here has been pressed into the service of a kind of federalism that has privileged diversity claims over equality claims. Although Indias experiment with state creation within federalism remains ongoing, with Telangana being the latest one carved out of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, given the shifts in priorities since the onset of Indias reforms in 1991, political incentives for demanding more states do not appear to be as attractive as before. While equality claims played second fiddle to diversity claims, the scope of the former has become further restricted today.

Indian federalism is much credited for resolving most of its ethno-regional and ethno-linguistic conflicts in conditions of democracy, which has served to ensure a relatively enduring political order and stability in the country over the last seven decades. The most distinctive method of doing so has been the territorial reorganisation since the early 1950s(Bhattacharyya 2019a: 8199). This territorial reorganisation entailed the political recognition of ethnic identities mostly through statehood. The latest addition to the process is the creation of Telangana out of Andhra Pradesh as the 29th (now 28th)1state of India in June 2014. In cases involving indigenous people in North East India, statehood and sub-statehood within the state have worked to manage conflicts among and between the indigenous people on the one hand and other ethnic groups on the other.

In both the cases, democracy in the sense of selecting the representatives as well as the mobilisation of the ethnic groups to demonstrate popular support for statehood and sub-statehood has added legitimacy to the process. It is beyond doubt that Indias is a success story in ensuring self-rule, to a significant extent, at many layers of federation. However, the same cannot be said to be true in the shared-rule part of federalism, whether at the national or the subnational levels, and better democratic delivery. There is today a global consensus that a federation is a compound polity that combines appropriately shared rule (national purposes) and self-rule (regional purposes) (Watts 2008).

Read more here:

Rethinking Indian Federalism : Consequences of Diversity-promoting Governing Practices - Economic and Political Weekly

The demand for restructuring Centre-State relations is as old as the adoption of the Constitution of India in 1950. The Founding Fathers of the Indian constitution took note of the emerging trend of cooperative federalism in the traditional federations. They were not committed to any principle of federalism rather their sole aim was to hammer out a constitution which was capable of solving the problems that the country was subjected to on the eve of independence and would also be confronted with in the future. Its makers were enamoured with the idea that it should work for the progress, peace and prosperity of the people. The framers evolved, developed and improvised a substructure in the constitution, to promote cooperation and minimize tensions between the centre and states. They provided a framework in which the federal governments was vested with wider powers than were granted to the governments of the states.

The religious, linguistic and ethnic diversities of India, the outbreak of communal riots, the trauma of partition and its ghastly aftermath, Gandhis assassination, the Communist upsurge in Telangana, problems of Indias external security and complex international order, and squalor of the teeming millions affected the mood and thinking of the framers of the Indian constitution. They believed that only a strong centre can act as a foil to Indias propensity to decentralise to the point of dismemberment, that the goal of the nation-the welfare of the people would be achieved only with a centralised cooperative federation.

The history of federalism and CentreState relations in India is marked by political mobilisation and intermittent struggle to fashion a more federal set-up. In the first phase lasting until the last 1960s, the task of nation building and development was the main concern of the nations rulers. This period was not solely dominated by the trend of centralisation. Whatever conflicts arose and there were many major ones-were all sought to be resolved under the Constitution. Geographic boundaries of the States have often been reorganised. In 1956, they were organised on linguistic basis. This laid the basis for the later assertion by the States for greater powers.

Later more States were formed Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Goa. Even in 2003, three large States were bifurcated to create three new States of Jharkand, Uttarakhand and Chhatisgarh to respect and encourage the local aspirations of the people.

In this regard installation of non-Congress governments at the state level after 1967 is considered as the beginning of the process of erosion of Congress hegemony. But in fact this was the starting point for the emergence of coalition politics in India. The decline of the Congress System as advocated by Austin, brought a number of issues to the surface. One of this issues was to make room for other political parties to play their roles in the national as well as local politics. The 1977 development is the process of culmination which started way back in 1967. In post 1967 phase the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam decided to carry on a campaign on CentreState relations in a systematic and scientific manner. In February 1970, in the DMK Conference in Tiruchy, a popular slogan , Autonomy for the States; Federalism at the Centre, was given.

In its 1971 Election Manifesto, the DMK announced: Though the Constitution of India is described as a Federal one, the balance is more tilted towards the Centre and hence the States are not able to function freely in the administrative and financial spheres. Only such powers as are necessary for the Centre to preserve the strength of India should be assigned to the Centre and all the other powers should be left to the States without impairing the ideal of a strong India. The DMK is of the view that for proper and ideal CentreState relations, there should be more powers for the States.

In the reign of Rajiv Gandhi, the strategies adopted to meet the crises originating from the states under non-Congress government became counter- productive on many issues. Initially, the Congress tried to penetrate into the Hindi heartland states in order to regain their electoral superiority. But the results in the Assembly elections in as many as ten states did not register a steady growth. In Maharashtra and Punjab almost the same picture could be seen.

In a bid to settle these issues, mainly in Punjab a peace accord was concluded between Rajiv Gandhi and the religious leader Harchand Singh Longowal which failed to satisfy either the people of Punjab or the government at the centre. The demand for state autonomy in the matter of finance, was also made by Biju Patnaik of Orissa towards the end of 1973 and in 1990 when he became the Chief Minister of Orissa.

In an interview to The Indian Express in September 1991, Patnaik reiterated his demand and suggested radical restructuring of CentreState relations.In fact the framers of the Constitution adopted a federal form of governance in the hope that the Union and the States would work within the limits of the constitution by mutual willingness and cooperation. States should not become over ambitious and the Union should also not be too coercive. Federalism can operate only if the Union tolerates the States and vice-versa. Federalism is primarily a device with considerable potential for integrating the political assertion of diverse regional interests and providing a framework for reconciling demands for increased representation and participation in national development. Thus viewed, the issue is more than merely devolution of powers from the Centre to the States. In other words, the constitution avoids the tight mould of federalism and it can be both unitary and federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances.

For the first time in 1989, a National Front coalition government headed by V.P. Singh, which included major regional parties like the DMK, took office at the Centre. Though short lived, this government took certain steps to strengthen the federal principle. The Inter State Council was constituted in 1990. The entry of regional parties in coalition government at the centre became a regular feature in 1996 with the formation of the United Front government and in all subsequent ones and presently in the United Progressive Alliance government.

The left parties, which supported both the National Front government in 1989 and the United Front government in 1996-1998 and the present UPA government, are strong supporters of the federal principle. An analysis of the nature and dimension of federal government in India will show that there has been qualitative changes in the inner dynamics of political parties in India, both at the national and regional levels.

Continue reading here:

Federalism And Prospect Of Centre-State Relations In India Analysis - Eurasia Review

After its price tag and progressive ambition, the most significant feature of the new Democratic agenda is how it seeks to shift core policy-making powers from state legislatures to Washington. The House of Representatives has already passed one bill that would federalize election rules and another that would undo state right-to-work laws on union membership. The Covid relief bill, now law of the land, includes unprecedented controls over states ability to set tax policy.

Ohio recently challenged the tax-cut restrictions in federal court, and on Wednesday 13 other states, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, followed suit. The challenges are worth watching for their economic impactand because they offer a preview of how the court system might mediate the contradictions between constitutional federalism and the new progressive juggernaut.

The American Rescue Plan bill distributes $350 billion to state and local governments, but it includes a provision that states cant use the funds to directly or indirectly offset tax reductions. What that means in practice is unclearand the new lawsuit argues the language is either impermissibly overbroad, impermissibly vague, or both.

The Supreme Courts anti-commandeering doctrine puts strict limitations on how much Congress can lean on states to enact its favored policies. Theres a straightforward small-d democratic reason for this: Voters need to know who to credit or blame for the laws they live under. The brief quotes a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that if a State imposes regulations only because it has been commanded to do so by Congress, responsibility is blurred. That puts sand in the gears of the federalist system.

The lawsuit also explains that the funds from Washington are too significant for states to reasonably refuse or raise on their own. West Virginias share amounts to a quarter of its 2021 revenue. Its 21% for Alabama and 29% for Arkansas. This forced choiceof whether to accept federal aid after an economic shockcommands states to pursue tax policy regimes in the interest of Congress, not of their constituents, the suit says.

Read the rest here:

States Fight the Tax-Cut Ban - The Wall Street Journal

On March 25, 2021, Rajya Sabha Member Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi rose to oppose the Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill 2021, in his speech in which he termed the bill to be the most pernicious & most unconstitutional bill Rajya Sabha has ever received.

This bill has resurrected the old but important discussion on Federalism. Let us look at the history of the events.

One of the most notable characteristics of the Indian Constitution is that, like various other western states, it establishes the structure of a federation. For a long time, the precise nature of India's Federation of states has been a source of contention. In the constituent Assembly, federalism was also a major topic of debate. While detailing the proposed Constitution, JB Kriplani, who was the president at the historic Meerut Session of the Indian National Congress in 1946, asserted that it must be federal in nature with maximum autonomy granted to the states.

With the core of the Indian problem no longer present after Partition, a trend toward centralization became increasingly irresistible. However, the Indian situation did not rule out the need for federation, as the Indian state's composite and heterogeneous nature were far too real to be overlooked. A federal-state structure with significant autonomy for provinces and regions was thus historically necessary, even though the Union would undoubtedly be much stronger than the cabinet mission had predicted.

As far as judicial interpretation of basic structure is concerned, subsequent to Kesavananda, the Supreme Court made occasional exploratory searches to identify the basic features of the Constitution. In Kesavananda itself Chief Justice Sikri enumerated what he considered were some of the basic features of the Constitution:

Supremacy of the Constitution

Republican and democratic form of government

Secular character of the Constitution

Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive & the judiciary

Federal Character of the Constitution

The federal concept may be the result of a voluntary compact between several independent states who agree to become a nation and to surrender such integral part of the power of government to the Centre at the national level. On the other hand, it could be the result of a historical process in which a new nation emerges and, in order to preserve its newly discovered national unity, splits itself into subnational units for the purpose of sharing power at two levels. The former is American federalism, and the latter is Indian federalism.

Justice Ahmadi went on to say in Bommai that the essence of a federation is the existence of the Union and the states, as well as the distribution of powers between them. Federalism thus entails the separation of powers in a federal accord. The observation by Justice Jeevan Reddy & Justice Agrwal is also of utmost importance. They went on to observe that the term "federal" or "federal" government has no specific meaning. It broadly denotes the division of powers between the central (federal) government and the constituent units (states). There are no two federal constitutions that are the same. Each of them, whether from the United States, Canada, Australia, or another country, has its own distinct personality. Each one is the result of a specific historical process. So is the case with India. It was not a case of independent states coming together to form a federation as in the case of USA. The fact that under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred upon the Centre vis--vis the states does not mean that states are mere appendages of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them, states are supreme The Centre cannot tamper with their powers. More particularly, the courts should not adopt an approach. An interpretation, which has the effect of or tends to have the effect of whittling down the powers reserved to the states.

It is a matter of common knowledge that over the last several decades, the trend the world over is towards strengthening of central governments --- be it the result of advances in technological/scientific fields or otherwise, and that even in the USA the Centre has become far more powerful notwithstanding the obvious bias in that Constitution in favour of the states, all this must put the court on guard against any conscious whittling down of the powers of the states. Let it be said that federalism in the Indian Constitution is not a matter of administrative convenience, but one of the principle-the outcome of our own historical process and recognition of the ground realities.

Lastly, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, a case concerning levying of the licence fee by the Centre in respect of the sale of tobacco in Bihar, the Supreme Court observed that in order to ensure the federal character of the Constitution, it was necessary to interpret the Constitution in a manner that it does not whittle down the powers of the state legislature and preserves the federal character while upholding central supremacy as contemplated by some of its articles.

Coming back to the provisions and conflicts with respect to the Government of NCT of Delhi & the Union Government, there is a jurisdictional dispute between the government of the NCT and the Union government and its representative, the Lieutenant Governor, due to the coexistence of Article 239 and 239AA.

Article 239 empowers the Lieutenant Governor to act independently of his council of ministers, according to the Union government, since New Delhi is a Union Territory. The state government of Delhi, on the other hand, argued that Article 239AA of the Constitution grants Delhi special status as a legislatively elected government. This creates a power struggle over the LG's and state government's administrative powers in the NCT of Delhi.

In, Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi vs Union of India (2018), the five-judge Bench had held that the LGs concurrence is not required on issues other than police, public order and land. The court further added that the decisions of the council of ministers will, however, have to be communicated to the LG and that the LG was bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The court also said that the status of the LG of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a state, rather he remains an administrator, in a limited sense, working with the designation of Lieutenant Governor. It had also pointed out that the elected government must keep in mind that Delhi is not a state.

The Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill 2021 which was passed yesterday will make it mandatory for the Government of NCT of Delhi to take the opinion of the lieutenant governor before taking executive actions. Further, the Lieutenant Governor has been made synonymous with the Government. Also, the bill provides the LG with enormous powers to refer all matters to the President. These provisions are inherently violative of the 2018 Judgement of Govt. Of NCT fof Delhi vs Union of India as well as abusive of the Doctrine of Pith & Substance.

Logically speaking, the apex court should take advantage of the current controversy to permanently settle the jurisdiction. India will only prosper if all of its states do as well. The solid foundations of federalism and democracy on which our country has thrived will begin to crumble if there is strife between the Centre and the states.

(Akshat Mehta and Priyanshi Jain are pursuing BA LLB, fourth year, from Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi & Deptt. of Law PIMR, Indore, respectively)

The rest is here:

How Relevant Is Federalism In View Of The GNCTD Bill? - Outlook India

Amid uproar and a walkout by major opposition parties, Rajya Sabha on Wednesday evening cleared a Bill to give the Lieutenant Governor significantly greater power in Delhi. The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on Monday.

Nearly all opposition parties opposed the Bill, stating that it went against the Constitution and cooperative federalism.

As MoS Home G Kishan Reddy read out the reasons for The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021, opposition members drowned him out with chanting.

The Congresss Abhishek Manu Singhvi delayed speaking, requesting the chair to put the House in order. Sir, I want to speak but I cant hear myself. How can I speak? Singhvi described the Bill as a most unconstitutional Bill that the House had ever considered, and said even the Delhi BJP should join us in opposing this.

Make no mistake friends, this is not about AAP, or Congress or BJP. Its about the fundamentals of federalism, he said, and alleged the Centre of coercive federalism.

Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge said, This Bill is to take the rights from the representatives of the people and to put the LG in charge. What is the point of elections if you are making the LG the leader?

Defending the Bill, Reddy said the amendments have been brought to address certain ambiguities in the 1991 law and rejected accusations that it intended to take away the powers of the elected government. The amendments would lead to transparency and clarity in governance in Delhi, and improve public accountability. There was no political angle, and the amendments were on technical grounds alone, he said.

The proposed Bill does not curtail in any manner any of the powers enjoyed by the government of NCT Delhi which are already provided in the Constitution, he said.

According to the statement of objects and reasons of the Bill, it has been brought to give effect to the interpretation of the Supreme Court which had ruled that the city government need not obtain the Lieutenant Governors concurrence of every issue of day-to-day governance.

The said Bill will promote harmonious relations between the legislature and the executive, and further define the responsibilities of the elected government and the L-G, in line with the constitutional scheme of governance of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the statement of objects said.

I want to assure the people of Delhi that whatever powers are given, the Modi government through this amendment Bill will not take away any powers, Reddy said.

Modi doesnt want to take the rights of Delhi. I want Delhi people to believe me. There is not a single line against the Constitution. The proposed Bill does not curtail any of the powers of the Government of NCT Delhi which is already provided by the Constitution of India. The Bill is not amending the Constitution. The Bill is in tune with Supreme Court judgments We have a responsibility to give this Act clarity, he said.

AAPs Sanjay Singh alleged the Bill had been brought by the BJP because it had lost Assembly elections twice. I am seeking justice for two crore citizens of Delhi and for 130 crore Indians. I am standing here to save the Constitution of India, he said.

A division was sought by the opposition. During voting, 83 members were in favour while 45 opposed the Bill. Just before the passage of the Bill, the Congress too walked out.

Minutes after the Bill was passed by Rajya Sabha, Delhi Chief Minister and AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal said it was a sad day for Indian democracy. According to sources, the government is exploring legal remedies and is expected to approach the Supreme Court against the amendments.

RS passes GNCTD amendment Bill. Sad day for Indian democracy. We will continue our struggle to restore power back to people. Whatever be the obstacles, we will continue doing good work. Work will neither stop nor slow down, Kejriwal tweeted.

The AAP government has had a tumultuous relationship with the Centre and the nominated L-G since it came to power with 67 out of 70 seats in 2015. Till 2018, there were constant battles between the two offices the CM and the L-G over matters of governance. It was after the SC judgment of 2018 that the Delhi government got a freer hand, which also reflected in policies such as free power (upto 200 units), free bus rides for women, and installation of CCTV cameras.

According to senior party leaders, with the amendments in place, the elected government will have less powers than the municipal corporations since any decision made by it can be turned down by the L-G.

Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia said: Today is a black day for democracy. The rights of a government elected by the people of Delhi have been snatched and handed over to the L-G. The irony is that the Parliament, which is a temple of democracy, was chosen for its murder. The people of Delhi will fight against this dictatorship, he tweeted.

See more here:

Coercive federalism, says Oppn as Rajya Sabha passes NCT Bill - The Indian Express

The NDA governments Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill cleared both houses of Parliament. It sparked a heated debate and was opposed by many political parties, including regional parties such as BJD that have often supported key NDA legislations.

The bill will undermine Delhis AAP government. The essence of the bill is that it shifts the balance of power between the elected government of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor in favour of the latter. This is at odds with the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling on the balance of power. Therefore, a legal challenge appears inevitable.

Read also: RS approves Delhi govt bill amid opposition walkout

From the standpoint of cooperative federalism, this legislation is harmful. Delhis electorate has given AAP two successive large majorities in the assembly elections and the apex court has stressed on the primacy of the elected representatives in some areas of Delhis functioning. This legislation will undermine cooperation between the Centre and opposition administered states as the debates in the Parliament showed that many of them interpreted the bill as an attempt to undermine state legislatures.

END OF ARTICLE

Here is the original post:

Legislation on Delhis division of powers will undermine federalism - The Times of India Blog

Less than 10 days after it was introduced in the Lok Sabha, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021 has got the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Surely, a piece of legislation that proposes far-reaching changes in the National Capital Territorys administration, drastically undermines the powers of Delhis elected government and virtually upturns a landmark Supreme Court verdict, warranted a longer journey in both Houses. It required thorough deliberation, even referral to a Select Committee, as demanded by members of the Opposition. That this did not happen speaks of the hubris of the central government, and draws attention, again, to its disturbing tendency of using its majority to steamroll contentious Bills the farm laws, just before this through Parliament. It also shines light on the volte face by the BJP, whose championing of Delhis quest for statehood dates back to at least 25 years. In fact, as Home Minister, LK Advani introduced the Delhi State Bill in Parliament in 2003. Is it not revanchism that when relegated to a distant runner-up in two successive elections to the Delhi assembly, the BJP uses its majority at the Centre to push legislation that requires Delhis AAP government to seek the L-Gs sanction for every administrative action?

Delhis special position as the countrys capital requires a bold re-imagination of the federal contract that currently determines its executive and legislative boundaries. On paper, that contract has been skewed against the elected government. But over a substantial period in the past 20 years, the Centre, its representative, the L-G, and the Delhi government seemed to have developed a working relationship, indeed a partnership at times, whose benefits continue to be felt by the citys residents the conversion of the citys public transport fleet to the environment-friendly CNG, introduction of private players in the power sector, and the Metro. It is true that AAPs advent on the citys political scene, its shrill political pitch and its preference for agitational politics over patient negotiations led to a setback in the evolving concord between the Centre and the elected government. However, the Supreme Court verdict of 2018 that removed the ambiguities of the powers of Delhis L-G vis--vis its council of ministers inaugurated a period of relative calm. The apex courts ruling that the elected government has pre-eminence on all matters other than police, public order and land enabled AAP to turn its welfarist agenda into policies mechanisation of the sewage system, free bus rides to women, free electricity to those using less than 200 units of power. Except on a few occasions, the L-G and the Delhi government were on the same page during the critical period of the pandemic last year.

The new law, by making Delhis L-G synonymous with the citys government, will reverse the progress made in the past 20 years in the NCTs quest for statehood, and also be bad news for federalism. The court must step in, and apply to the law the constitutionality test.

Originally posted here:

Law and control - The Indian Express

Amidst much uproar from the Opposition benches, the Rajya Sabha on the late hours of Wednesday passed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021. Legislators from Opposition parties walked out of the house at the time of voting after the government refused to send the Bill for the consideration of a Select Committee. This Bill, which will fortify the Centres grip over Delhi, had been passed by the Lok Sabha on March 22 and will soon become law after Presidential assent.

The Bill ostensibly seeks to give effect to the interpretation made by the Supreme Court on the constitutional provisions regarding the structure of governance in Delhi and clarify that the expression Government shall mean the Lieutenant Governor.

In reality, it completely nullifies the 2018 judgment of the five-judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India that laid down the primacy of the elected government in Delhi. This Bill challenges the fundamental underpinnings and principles of democratic government and federalism in India.

The Bill undermines the authority of the democratically elected government of Delhi in several ways. Firstly, it states that the expression government referred to in any law made by the Legislative Assembly shall mean the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Such an interpretation is truly bizarre and betrays all principles of democracy and representative government.

It destroys the very need to have a Council of Ministers and transmogrifies the role of the Lieutenant Governor beyond what is envisaged in the Constitution and in the 2018 Supreme Court Judgment.

The Constitution Bench had held that the status of the Lieutenant Governor is that of an administrator, in a limited sense and that the Lieutenant Governor has not been entrusted with any independent decision-making power. Even if we accept that the Lieutenant Governor is not a mere ceremonial head, it is hard to fathom how in a parliamentary system the term government can singularly mean an unelected nominee of the Centre.

Secondly, it states that on matters specified by the Lieutenant Governor, the Council of Ministers must obtain the permission of the Lieutenant Governor before taking any executive decision. This provision directly violates the 2018 Supreme Court judgment. Interpreting Article 239AA (4) of the Constitution, which states that the Council of Ministers shall aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor, the Supreme Court held that the Lieutenant Governor is bound by such aid and advice on all matters in the State List of the Constitution, other than the excluded subjects of land, police and public order.

It held that requiring prior concurrence with the Lieutenant Governor would negate the ideals of representative governance and democracy. Hence, while the Lieutenant Governor should be informed of the decisions by the Council of Ministers, his/her concurrence is not necessary. The Bill not only makes the Delhi government beholden to the diktats of the Centre, but will also make daily administration cumbersome as all decisions will require the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor.

Thirdly, the Bill imposes multiple restrictions on the rule-making powers of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi. It prohibits the Assembly from making any rule that enables it to examine the day-to-do matters of administration or conduct any inquiry into administrative decisions. It also requires the rules made by the Legislative Assembly of Delhi to be consistent with the rules of Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha.

Such restrictions on the rule-making powers of the Legislative Assembly are an unprecedented assault on the inherent powers of a legislature. Restricting a Legislative Assembly from conducting inquiries into administrative decisions of the government destroys the very purpose of the legislature, which is to hold the executive to account. The administrative actions of the Executive cannot be above legislative scrutiny in a parliamentary government.

The Bills requirement that the rules of conduct of business to be consistent with rules of the Lok Sabha also has no basis in the Constitution or parliamentary conventions. Such restrictions destroy the inherent privilege of each legislature to frame rules regarding its proceedings on its own volition.

Hence, through multiple provisions, the Bill completely enfeebles both the Legislative Assembly and the Council of Ministers of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It overturns the Supreme Court judgment though subterfuge and destroys the essence of the Constitution (69th Amendment) Act, 1991 that provided Delhi a special status as a national capital territory with a legislative assembly.

The passage of this Bill casts ominous signs for the future of federalism in India. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi often rhetorically invokes the idea of co-operative federalism, such decisions by the Union government subverts federalism and centralises political authority. Beyond the faade, federalism in India is now being hollowed out by incremental steps that dismantles the autonomy of state governments, especially those governed by opposition parties.

These steps range from passing laws, like the farm bills, that limit states authority to legislate on agriculture, to withholding Goods and Services Tax compensation to states, to using the office of the governor to topple opposition-led state governments after effecting political defections. The starkest example of the decimation of federalism was the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 and converting a full-fledged state into a Union Territory.

Many political observers, especially on social media, are now pointing out how the chief minister of Delhi had then tweeted in support of the decisions of the Centre regarding Jammu and Kashmir. However, while the hypocrisy and insensitivity towards Kashmir is indeed worrying, deriving any schadenfreude for what is happening to the Delhi government is unfortunate.

As India witnesses a brazen assault on its foundational values of constitutionalism, democracy, and federalism, it is important to oppose and collectively resist these decisions on principle. Challenging the belligerent centralising agenda of the Union government requires a new politics of federalism, one that genuinely embraces the principles behind this idea and articulates it assertively in mass politics.

Mathew Idiculla is a legal and policy consultant based in Bengaluru and a visiting faculty at Azim Premji University

Here is the original post:

Bill giving primacy to Delhi LG shows hollowness of Modis claims of co-operative federalism - Scroll.in

It is a realisation of the fundamental political freedom of self-determination, which itself is a fundamental human right of a people.Many Nigerians with the full knowledge of these historical contexts and lessons have sought to resolve amicably the fractious union imposed by colonialism. The inclination is to renegotiate the union with more autonomy for parties to the union and ensure a true federation and if impossible draw new national boundaries. Czechoslovakia went different ways without firing any shots, and where you had standpatters like Yugoslavia, they went into violent dissolution.

The need to avoid these doomsday scenarios perhaps informed the voice of reason sounding from a congregation of Nigerian peoples under the aegis of The Nigerian Indigenous Nationalities Alliance for Self-Determination. The alliance parading prominent Nigerians, including former Chief of General Staff, Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe (rtd), former Governor of Plateau State, Jonah Jang, Second Republic Senator, Prof. Banji Akintoye, erstwhile President-General, Ohaneze Ndigbo, Chief Nnia Nwodo, former Vice-Chairman of Arik Air, Senator Anietie Okon, leader of Middle Belt Forum, Dr. Bitrus Pogu, professor of religion, and Prof. Yusuf Turaki among others petitioned the foremost global governance body, the United Nations (UN), the European Union and the continental organisation, the Africa Union, United States of America and the British Government,over the faulty Nigerian state structure and the constitutional framework known as the 1999 Constitution, which they claimed is flawed or in the words of the late Rotimi Williams, a constitution that lied against itself.In the petition, the alliance noted the incongruity of the extant 1999 constitution evident in its skewed nature in favour of the northern region to the de-autonomisation of other regions, especially the South and Middle Belt regions of the country.

According to the alliance, We gather here today before the global community, to formally proclaim a sovereignty dispute in rejection of the further operation of the imposed, unitary constitutional arrangements of Nigeria and in assertion of our inalienable right to self-determination. Besides, the alliance drew attention to the fact of a country-wide consensus against the unitary constitutional arrangements imposed incrementally on Nigeria by a combination of guile, brute force and impunity between 1966 and 1999, now codified by the 1999 Constitution, saying, the countrywide consensus had manifested in several unilateral regional and joint multi-regional actions in repudiation and rejection of the 1999 Constitution. All said, the alliance called on Nigeria to urgently convoke a Sovereign National Conference to discuss Nigerias constitutionality and the 1914 Amalgamation of the Southern and Northern Nigeria within 90 days as the pathway to freedom from an obvious internal colonisation.

We think that the alliance has spoken and its action is in the direct direction. Nigeria has become the sick man of Africa, saving the patient, itself a recalcitrant bully requires the prodding of agencies of global governance and great powers to avoid an implosion that would have devastating and domino effect on the West Africa sub-region.The global community should look the other way. The reality today is that the country has been badly governed, its resources squandered by a most backward elite that continue to preside over the looting of the common till of the peoples in ways that have stunted economic growth and development. We would like to put the world on notice that things have virtually fallen apart in Africas most populous nation and the centre may not hold without dialogue to restore freedom and autonomy to the component nationalities of the country. The tenor of the debate so far evinces a window for a negotiated federal union.

The essential ingredients of such a union have been well canvassed and engrossed in several documents, which the alliance have copiously adverted to.As the alliance has rightly noted, Between 2005 and 2006, a Sovereign Conference of the Ethnic Nationalities of Nigeria, convened by the Pro-National Conference Organizations (PRONACO), deliberated exhaustively and produced a Draft Peoples Constitution 2006, which had the potential of restoring Nigeria to its damaged federal foundations. Though ignored by successive Federal Governments, that draft became the new Federating Consensus against the prevailing unitary constitutional order in Nigeria.

It is to be noted that the federal thread runs though these documents acknowledging it as an instrument of governability in the context of managing diversity and multi-ethnic entities like Nigeria. Which is why the governing party in the country should wake up from its lethargy and disdain towards calls for restructuring of the federation in the context of practice of federalism, which we consider the only answer to our ticklish national question, after all.

Go here to see the original:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 22 - Guardian

By PTI

NEW DELHI: Rajya Sabha witnessed a massive uproar on Wednesday as the opposition, led by the Congress and the AAP, alleged that the Modi government was trying to bypass the elected Delhi Assembly by bringing an "unconstitutional" bill to empower the Lt Governor and was practising "coercive federalism".

Several opposition members trooped into the Well and shouted anti-government slogans forcing two back-to-back adjournments of 10 minutes each, while the BJD, YSRCP and the SP members walked out in protest against the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021.

Defending the bill, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs G Kishan Reddy asserted that the amendments have been brought to address certain ambiguities in the law and rejected allegations that it was an attempt to usurp powers of the elected government.

Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi tore into the GNCTD (Amendment) Bill , dubbing it is "most unconstitutional bill" which the House has ever received and went on to say that "even the Delhi BJP should join us in opposing this".

"Make no mistake friends this is not about AAP, or Congress or BJP. It's about the fundamentals of federalism," he said, and alleged the current regime at Centre was engaged into "coercive federalism".

The Trinamool Congress and the Shive Sena also attacked the central government over the bill, and several opposition members demanded that it be sent to the Select Committee for greater scrutiny, The bill, that was already been passed by Lok Sabha, was later approved by Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.

According to the bill, the "government" in Delhi means the "Lieutenant Governor" and it also makes it mandatory for the Delhi government to take the opinion of the L-G before any executive action.

Soon after Rajya Sabha returned the Finance Bill, 2021 this evening, the House took up the proposed legislation on Delhi.

However, Leader of Opposition and Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge opposed the amendments, alleging they have been brought to put up a proxy government or to rule Delhi state through the "back door".

"If you make LG the government (of Delhi state) what is the need for elections. And also there is no need then for representatives to chose chief minister. This (bill) is against the Constitution," he said.

Kharge, a former Union Minister, said if the present government actually wants to make amendments it should bring a Constitutional amendment and not through an ordinary bill.

Sanjay Singh, MP of Aam Admi Party (AAP) which is in power in Delhi, took a jibe at the BJP saying the bill has been brought as it lost assembly elections twice.

"I am seeking justice for two crore citizens of Delhi and for 130 crore Indians. I am standing here to save the Constitution of India," he said.

A notice moved by Singh regarding the bill was not approved by the Chair.

As opposition members were objecting to the bill, Union Minister Kishan Reddy asserted that the amendments were not new in nature, but have been brought to address certain ambiguities related to the functioning of the NCT government.

The minister said he was ready to respond to all the concerns being raised.

BJP MP Bhupinder Yadav too defended the proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, several opposition members started raising anti-government slogans and trooped in the Well of the House.

Deputy Chairman Harivansh tried to calm the members and called Singhvi to put forth his views on the bill.

As the protesting members reached the well and House marshals arrived, Kharge warned that what happened in the Bihar assembly on Tuesday should not be repeated.

Kharge was referring to the chaos that erupted in the Bihar assembly when police were called inside to assist the marshals in evicting unruly opposition members protesting against the Bihar Special Armed Police Bill, 2021.

However, Singhvi insisted that the House first be brought to order.

"I cannot even hear myself," he said, as sloganeering continued.

With protesting members in no mood to relent, the Chair adjourned the House twice for 10 minutes each.

When the House re-assembled, Singhvi started his speech.

The Congress leader, who is a senior lawyer, alleged the bill reflects a fundamental intolerance of the ruling party towards other parties.

He alleged the laws were being changed through "stealth", "subterfuge" and "camouflage", and hence it is even more diabolical.

The Congress MP also took a swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying in 2012 he had expressed concerns on federalism.

Derek O'Brien (TMC) made a strong pitch for sending the bill to the Select Committee.

BJD's Prasanna Acharya said the Centre should have held wider consultations before bringing this bill.

"My party does not want to be a party to this bill. We are staging a peaceful walkout," he said, and lamented that the proposed legislation undermines the elected government of Delhi state.

P Wilson (DMK) termed the bill as "blot on the Constitution".

He cautioned that the bill would be stayed by courts even if it is passed by Parliament.

He too demanded that the bill be examined by a select committee.

V P Nishad (SP) and Jharna Das Baidya (CPI-M) too opposed the bill terming it unconstitutional.

In his speech, Manoj Jha (RJD) said his party was opposing the proposed law "on constitutional parameter and moral principles".

V Vijayasai Reddy (YSRCP) too walked out of the House.

Opposing the bill, AAP leader Sanjay Singh said it is against the Constitution, democracy and elected government.

"Delhi's two crore people have elected the government. We want to know for which mistake you are punishing us. Are you punishing us for improving education, health and other areas in the interest of people?" he said.

Singh said the BJP always talked about having a full-fledged government during elections in Delhi although the party has not won since 1998.

"Why don't you pass a bill that the President will run the country and not Prime Minister and Home Minister," he added.

He claimed the reason behind bringing the bill is that the Delhi government denied giving six stadiums to convert them into jails for protesting farmers when the central government had asked for it.

The bill has also been brought to withdraw the free water and electricity given in Delhi, he said, adding that Delhi citizens will not forgive the BJP.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The tendency of the BJP to subvert democracy and hunger for absolute and unchecked power has been seen on earlier occasions too.It was seen in Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal and Maharashtra," Shiv Sena's Priyanka Chaturvedi alleged.

"If this bill is passed, citizens of Delhi will suffer. It should be sent to a select committee for wider consultations," she said.

SAD leader Naresh Gujral urged the government not to deny the citizens of Delhi their rights.

"They voted to elect people to govern them. Today you are denying them to govern. That's why my party strongly opposes it," he said.

TDP's Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar said even if the bill is introduced, it cannot override the effect of the Constitution.

"If the matter is taken to SC, it will be subject to judicial review and will not stand the legal scrutiny," he said.

NCP leader Fauzia Khan strongly opposed the bill saying "if passed today it will be called a black day in the history of constitutional democracy."

The bill should be rejected outrightly and scrapped, she said, adding that she does not understand why the Centre is getting into a conflict with union territories and states."

In Maharashtra, we have given 12 governor-nominee names for MLCs to the Governor and they have not been approved for months now as he is waiting that the government may change anytime," she alleged.

Read the rest here:

Opposition slams GNCTD Bill as 'unconstitutional', accuses Centre of practising 'coercive federalism' - The New Indian Express