There is a saying in English: Man proposes, God disposes. It means people can make plans; God determines how things will turn out. In the past decade that we have had the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in the national capital, its functioning could well acquire the sobriquet of govt proposes and the system disposes.
The most recent example for it being the statement by minister Atishi that there would be a possible water crisis in the city. She alleged that funds required to maintain the city’s water supply were not being released to the DJB at the behest of Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar.
Delhi government in the recent weeks has been going hammer and tongs against Kumar, who is credited with unearthing the liquor scam. Investigations into the scam has seen many an AAP leaders including a former Deputy CM and a sitting MP cool heels in incarceration.
The minister’s statement was countered the very next day by the DJB itself. A press release issued by its public relations department said that the residents of the capital need not panic. A statement released by its deputy director (public relations) said, “… it is clarified that DJB does not expect or anticipate any such disruption in its services and DJB is fully geared up to meet its responsibilities towards the citizens of Delhi in so far as the regular supply of water and sewerage services are concerned.”
Atishi’s statement had mentioned that she has written to L-G V K Saxena seeking intervention in the alleged plans made by Finance Secretary Ashish C Verma to prevent the “release of the second instalment of the grant-in-aid and loan to DJB, and that Verma’s obstructionist tactics has led to a severe resource crunch in the DJB.”
Now there is never known before scenario where the minister herself is belittling the efforts of her charges and them coming up with the official rebuttal that all was hunky dory and there was no crisis. Such situations are a fit case for study in the realm of public administration.
In the Indian administrative system, rule of law dominates. This situation is guaranteed under the Constitution with the judiciary being the overseer for the rule of law. CM Arvind Kejriwal’s government has on several occasions gone to the Supreme Court seeking its intervention.
The apex court has given rulings where the policy lacked a clear direction. It has abjured, and rightly so, from interfering in the matters of implementing the rules of business of running a government. As in the latest case of appointment of the new Chief Secretary, where the Supreme Court last Friday told Centre to bring a panel eligible civil servants to thecourt on Tuesdayand that it would direct Kejriwal to select one from the panel within an hour.
This has been done, according to the apex court, to insulate those in the zone of consideration from social media discussion. The Centre in its plea on the matter, through the Lieutenant Governor, earlier had said that “There has been a running commentary on the incumbent Chief Secretary so much so that he had to move a court to get an injunction against scurrilous attacks. In this scenario, they (AAP government) come and tell the SC not to foist someone on them. This is vitiating the atmosphere.”
The Supreme Court asking for the panel from the Centre once again endorses that the likes and dislikes of the political executive vis-a-vis the permanent executive has to be exercised within the rules of business. To an unbiased observer, the court has shown bias only in the favour of the system under which the government should work.
Sidharth Mishra
Author and president, Centre for Reforms,Development & Justice