Delhi Assembly Speaker Vijender Gupta believes it is essential for people to know a leader’s mindset and road map. The former DUSU vice-president is a crusader against commercialisation of education. “Education is a social welfare measure in India. If we can’t provide a level-playing field to our children, then we are not doing justice to them,” he says, taking part in Delhi Dialogues of this newspaper. Excerpts:
Santwana Bhattacharya: We have seen time and again that the role of the Speaker as the adjudicator of matters has been questioned and, reaffirmed and fleshed out in various manners. How do you see the role of the Speaker, particularly when the Opposition is raising questions on impartiality?
The Supreme Court has said very clearly in the matter related to Telangana that it cannot question the role of the Speaker, but if he is not making any decisions, and pendency is becoming a common phenomenon, and as a result, things are being affected, he should make decisions. The court has asked him to make decisions.
On a lighter note, I want to tell you since you talked about Mavlankar Ji. My reply has no connection with the incident I am telling you about.
The position of Speaker is a very responsible job. The Speaker has to show unbiasedness in actual terms. What will be the objective behind being unbiased, and why are you unbiased? His motive should be to ensure the smooth running of the House. The first motive is that the business decided in the Business Advisory Committee should be completed. Secondly, ensure the participation of people in a proportionate manner.
Mavlankar Ji used to say that the Speaker’s decision is final not because it is correct but because it is final. So, it cannot be challenged. There is no second thought about it, as our Constitution says. As far as my experience goes, I was the Leader of the Opposition, hence, I have seen both sides of the dias.
The last 10 years of my legislatureship as LoP were painful. I don’t want to be biased despite my odd experience, but the reality is that when I am in the Speaker’s chair, I can realise the previous government’s biased approach.
During the Budget session, the Opposition brought a calling attention motion, raising it inside and outside the House. The issue was related to the power shortage. There was too much hue and cry. A member brings a calling attention motion to draw the government’s attention to an issue he feels necessary to raise on the floor. Three calling attention motions were made during the session, two from the Opposition and one from the ruling party.
The issue was about rule 54. I asked my office to call them to say it would be rejected. But I gave them an option that I may accept if they wish to change it to the calling attention. I got a response that they accepted it without any debate, corrected it, and accepted my notice.
The third was a short-duration discussion. Meanwhile, the list of businesses was already distributed before the session began. We added calling attention to the list. We wanted the Opposition to talk about it. If the Opposition is not satisfied, then they should cross-question, and we were ready to give them a free hand.
For the first time, the member who applied for calling attention was sitting outside the Assembly, and the entire Opposition was standing outside. Question hour received 384 questions. Twenty starred questions were received from the Opposition — 80-starred questions total—and 300 unstarred questions.
We don’t want to name anyone, but some questions made no sense, had no connection, and had no relation to the Assembly. The Opposition was screaming over irrelevant questions. They were given two supplementary questions. Question hour is the only bridge that leads to communication between members and the government. The relationship between the government and elected members strengthens during this. If you scream or bring placards, what will the Chair do? The Chair has to keep the session in order, and marshalling out is the only solution.
Thirty-six members spoke in the Budget session. I told the Opposition that all 22 could speak. Ironically, the members named on the list were not even present. We still said they be called for the session.
Take out my recording of when I was the LoP. My mike used to be switched off before I would turn it on to speak. The ruling party members never allowed me to speak. They used to demoralise, abuse, and the mike was not turned on for more than one minute.
However, I told the Opposition that I would not ring the bell. You speak as much as you want. Because the Budget is an important document, the Opposition should put forward criticism. The Budget was discussed for seven hours and 16 minutes.
Rajesh Kumar Thakur: Will the marshall-out culture continue?
I don’t want to marshall out anyone. My sense of Opposition is that if they want to scream and their goal is not to go out of the room, I will allow them to scream because they also want to participate.
The LoP came to me and complained. I told them I had a solution: If you wish to take up some issue in the Assembly that is not on the list of business, show your resentment and walk out. At least you will be able to attend the next debate. I promised them they would not be marshalled out.
Shekhar Singh: Any action on the CAG reports tabled in the Budget session?
The first step is the Action Taken Report. The department provides its note on the CAG report. The second step is to send this note to the CAG, who will comment on it. Thus, a comparative analysis is done.
Every year, each state undergoes a CAG audit, and the CAG can prepare a report on any department, often randomly. Initially, the CAG prepares a preliminary report, which is sent to the concerned department. That is a draft that the CAG sends to the department for a response. If the CAG is satisfied with the department’s reply, the matter is dropped. If not, it becomes an “audit para”, and the CAG report is presented before the House.
The Government of India has developed an application to expedite this process. It’s called the Audit Para Monitoring System app. With this, the CAG, the departments, and the Legislative Assembly will all be connected, ensuring transparency and timely responses. The previous government did not implement it. As soon as BJP came to power, I wrote to the chief secretary and had it implemented because the Accountant General of Delhi informed me that the app had not been developed. I acted to ensure it was implemented.
In Delhi, I can say that the CAG report has largely been treated as a formality, but I will not allow that to continue. You’ll be surprised that in the past 10 years, no audit para has been tabled in the House as a formal report, despite the AAP government being in power since 2015 and the Congress government before that. Even during the Congress era, after 2008, no single CAG audit para was presented in the House.
Essentially, they’re just being dumped. The CAG report comes, it makes news, and then it’s placed in cold storage. Paras from the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s remain unsettled, even after 50 years. This is serious. The CAG is supposed to be an instrument of accountability, a watchdog. And when it comes to the Delhi Assembly, I can clearly say that the CAG has been sidelined.
I believe more work will now be done on the CAG front. Fourteen reports have already been tabled, and more will follow because it’s an annual exercise.
Rajesh Kumar Thakur: What is your view on whether a new excise policy should be introduced?
That’s something I’ll speak about on the floor of the House.
Santwana Bhattacharya: The CAG report is understandably critical of the previous government. But eventually, CAG reports will come on the current government as well. Will you maintain the same transparency?
Yes, definitely. The CAG is being misunderstood. It is actually a friend to the government. If you read the language of the CAG reports, you’ll see that an honest government would welcome them. The CAG highlights anomalies, discrepancies, shortfalls, and misuse of public funds. It allows the government to set things right and catch those responsible for wrongdoing. Why should the CAG be suppressed or silenced?
Kavita Bajeli-Datt: As soon as BJP formed government, private schools increased fees by 20%-80%...
I firmly believe that fee hikes shouldn’t be unreasonable, exorbitant, or done for commercial benefit. Schools that have hiked the fees should be subject to a thorough investigation. The Directorate of Education has assured me that it is doing all it can, from monitoring the schools to studying previous court directions. Appropriate measures will be taken regarding the schools that need action. However, it’s important to note that the Delhi School Education Act gives certain leeway to unaided schools, which is sometimes misused. These schools face many obstacles, but they also exploit several loopholes. For example, with the introduction of the pay commission, schools can justify pay hikes as a reason for increased costs.
I have had several disagreements with school authorities. There are many good schools, and I honour those who are genuinely contributing to the field of education. However, my conflict is with those who have turned education into a business. These schools have a poor reputation in the eyes of the public. It will be challenging to achieve the final result until we all come together and raise our voices against the commercialisation of education.
Kavita Bajeli-Dutt: What is it about bureaucrats that they are not taking calls of elected MLAs?
There are two key issues. First, since a new government has come to power with new members, it is crucial for them to understand their rights and responsibilities. Bureaucrats also need to realise that they are elected representatives and should pay attention to them.
We wanted to say that there are privileges, protocols, and some government orders that the bureaucracy has to follow. We sent the circular to the chief secretary and asked him to re-circulate it so that every bureaucrat knows their responsibility.
Second, coordination between the bureaucracy and the government is essential. They are like the two tyres of the same vehicle. When you call the CS home and assault him, then bureaucracy gets scared. We have addressed this by circulating the necessary circulars and withdrawing over 300 cases against bureaucrats.
Santwana Bhattacharya: Delhi has been facing a tremendous amount of traffic. As a public representative, what do you think needs to be done?
Yes. While the Union government and NHAI have done a lot to reduce traffic, much more needs to be done. If you notice, the traffic flow is uninterrupted at many choke points. The upcoming UER is expected to bring more relief to the people.
The last government played politics at the cost of governance. There are multiple examples. The DDA made a flyover in Narela Bawana at the cost of Rs 300 crore. Everything was final, and the only hurdle was four trees. The AAP government did not have permission to remove those trees, hence, the project was stalled. The fourth phase of Delhi Metro was deliberately delayed by four years, while RRTS scheme was delayed by three years. The unspoken diktat to officials was to let no development work be completed before the election.
Paramita Ghosh: Can you mention two speakers, including those from the Opposition, whose work has inspired you?
Somnath Chatterjee Ji was very impressive as a speaker.
Preetha Nair: The GNCT Act gives overarching powers to the L-G and has been criticised by the Opposition. Now that you are in power, how do you see this act?
This act has clarified the roles of different authorities. There has been a lot of confusion, chaos, and overlapping in recent years. When Sheila Dikshit was the Chief Minister, what was defined was not what was practised. When the BJP government was in power in Delhi and the Congress in the Centre, everything functioned smoothly, and no one interfered with each other’s domain. However, when these so-called anarchists brought a different kind of politics, they never sought solutions; they only looked for problems, even when in power.