Centre should opt for Presidential Reference
The only way to settle the dispute over the Delhi Government's Jan lokpal Bill is for the Union Government to seek a Presidential Reference on the issue. lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung must move to quell the unsavoury controversy by recommending the reference. Given that Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has vehemently insisted on the State Government's right to introduce the Bill in the Assembly without the consent of the Centre, and the equally strong stand taken by the Opposition that such is not the case because the Bill has financial ramifications for the Union Government and it must, therefore, require a Central nod, the only way out is to ascertain the constitutional validity of the action that Mr Kejriwal desires. The issue has become even more complicated after Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran categorically said that the Centre's clearance is mandatory before the Bill is placed before the House.
There is a lot of politics going on, with the Aam Aadmi Party and its rivals slinging accusations against one another. The AAP has levelled serious charges against the Governor, with one of its leaders calling him a “Congress agent”. Mr Kejriwal himself has written to Mr Jung counselling him to follow the Constitution and not the dictates of a party or the Union Government. This sort of language is reprehensible, and hopefully it will end if the Centre decides to refer the matter to the President who will then ask the Supreme Court to give its opinion. Indeed, the issue is fit enough for the apex court to decide because constitutional points have been raised. In fact, the debate has to do with not just the validity of bringing the Bill without the Union Government's approval but also with certain provisions of the Bill that reportedly militate against both the lokpal Act Parliament has passed and the Delhi lokayukta that exists. Neither the AAP nor any other party can offer definitive solutions to these complex contentions. A Presidential Reference and the subsequent opinion of the Supreme Court will lead to a valuable precedent too.
Meanwhile, mud-slinging has become part of the AAP's offensive against those it perceives as acting against its interests. Days ago, when rebellion brewed within the party, with one of its MlAs coming out against the “dictatorial” attitude of the Chief Minister, AAP members accused the Bharatiya Janata Party of plotting the State regime's ouster. Its tirade against Mr Jung too comes weeks after Mr Kejriwal had praised the Governor for being extremely “sympathetic” to his request for a revamp of the State's anti-corruption cell. However, the Chief Minister's mood changed after Mr Jung questioned the State Government's move to remove the Chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women for being ‘pro-Congress', when the latter took on law Minister Somnath Bharti over the Khirki village episode. Also, in a show of utter irresponsibility days ago, Mr Kejriwal read out a list of “corrupt” politicians against whom his party would pit candidates in the lok Sabha poll. While the AAP has the right to contest against anybody it desires, the Chief Minister cannot pass off slanderous remarks as truth, in the absence of any evidence. It now faces, or is threatened with, a slew of defamation cases. But the AAP has never bothered about constitutional proprieties. It has been itching to be displaced from power so that it can go around town as a martyr and hope to reap electoral dividend in the coming general election. Governance has never been on the top of its agenda.