EC disqualifying 20 MLAs is not the first time AAP has been under the attack
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has been facing bureaucratic and political pressure from its inception. Ever since its unexpected performance in the 2013 Delhi Assembly elections, the party has been constantly under attack from the BJP as well as the Congress.
While the BJP reviled it and accused AAP of a plethora of crimes, it’s most staunch critic has been former lieutenant governor (LG) of Delhi Najeeb Jung - an NDA appointee who carried out Union government orders without questions.
The AAP had a delayed but massive victory in 2015, in which it won 67 of the 70 Assembly seats (only three seats going to the BJP). But one major problem persisted. The inordinate powers of the LG overrode the elected AAP government at every step. The incumbent LG, Anil Baijal, is a former member of the RSS-linked Vivekananda International Foundation. To choose an LG who has served an outfit with a manifestly partisan agenda, is surely a serious deviation from democratic norms.
The issue of executive powers of the Delhi government (who enjoys supremacy in governing the national Capital – the Delhi government or the lieutenant governor) is pending for months in the Supreme Court constitutional bench. The AAP government had earlier filed appeals challenging the Delhi High Court's verdict holding LG as the administrative head of the national capital.
But as an eminent federalist professor pointed out in the middle of the 20th century, India is not federal, but quasi-federal. The Indian Constitution is heavily weighted in favour of the Union, popularly called the Centre. It is a centralised polity. There are 97 major powers in the Union list, 47 powers in the Concurrent list, and 66 powers in the State list.
The Union can override the states when it comes to subjects in the Concurrent list. That means the Union has 144 (97+47) subjects it can legislate on as opposed to just 66 subjects for the states. And there are grey areas. Delhi is neither a Union Territory nor a state.
However, the question of the AAP has come up on the issue of parliamentary secretaries. The Election Commission has recommended that 20 MLAs, who were appointed as parliamentary secretaries by AAP, be disqualified for holding office of profit.
There are some intriguing issues which need to be raised. This matter was pending since 2015. Why this extraordinary delay? And why this sudden decision by the chief election commissioner, AK Joti, who is set to retire in two days' time. This is the second CEC to deal with this matter.
Moreover, suspicions over the EC’s impartiality has been raised by many as recently as two months ago over the timing of the Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh elections.
Ahead of the Assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat, the current CEC and his colleagues apparently buckled under pressure and digressed from the time-honoured convention that elections due within six months of each other are held simultaneously. Former chief election commissioners TS Krishnamurthy and S Quraishi openly disapproved of the Election Commission's move.
Obviously, the deviation from EC norms favoured the NDA in Gujarat elections where they had more time to campaign. Therefore, the current concerns about the role of the CEC and his colleagues have substantial basis. Especially, since the earlier CEC and his colleagues from 2015 onwards did not arrive at the conclusion that CEC AK Joti did.
As expected, apart from the NDA, the Congress also vigorously supported the disqualification of the 20 AAP MLAs. The Congress motto seems to be that it alone should be the dominant secular party, despite being trounced by the AAP in the Delhi Assembly elections and trailing a poor third in the MCD polls.
But if the CEC was dissatisfied over the issue, he should have consulted legal and Constitutional experts right after he was appointed to his office, and given AAP a thorough hearing. His attitude doesn’t seem to have been adequately fair, as the earlier episode of the timing of the Gujarat Assembly elections showed.
However, there are two major lessons for the AAP. Firstly, the AAP cannot bank on Constitutional authorities alone. After all, the functioning of Delhi LGs clearly appears to be following the orders of the Union government, as expected. The AAP must be both very careful and prepared, for likely eventualities directed at weakening, if not overthrowing, the Delhi government.
What the president of India will decide is already evident. The AAP must go for other options. The Delhi government’s plea in the Supreme Court is unlikely to provide significant relief, given the quasi-federal nature of the Constitution. But this is not the first time that the AAP is facing a difficult time. It is fully capable of overcoming this challenge, even if at a cost.