My views and analysis on Constitutional crisis in Delhi: AAP vs LG

Interference in working of democratically elected government, is a serious matter of concern. It hampers the vision with which the government was elected (stated in manifesto). 

Delhi occupies the special status in the constitution, as per National Capital Territory of Delhi Act 1991. According to it, it has legislative assembly of its own and council of ministers. However, being a union territory, it is administered by President via Lieutenant Governor. There is conflict when, Lieutenant Governor, interferes in the working of council of ministers headed by Chief Minister. 

In recent past, there have been numerous such conflicts. Most recently, there have been strike of IAS officers, owing to the assault met by a senior IAS officer, Anshu Prakash, at the residence of Chief Minister. In its response, the council of ministers have resorted to hunger strike at LG's official residence.

Reasons for conflict

1. Root of the conflict can be: the ruling party at Delhi is different from the party currently in power at the centre, for e.g. there have been similar incidences of conflicts seen in Puducherry, where the Lieutenant Governor appointed, belong to different party than the party currently in power in the state.

2. LG is appointed by the President. With the President bound by the advice of council of ministers by Art 74, LG appointed is often the will of council of ministers. If the party at the centre has absolute majority, the interference by the central government increases. Because the administrator appointed is the agent of the President. 

3. This constitutional scheme of administering the union territory via an administrator (Art 239)was formulated with different intention. Intention was definitely not interference. The motive was that president should be informed of important decisions taken by the council of ministers. This was important keeping in mind the federal structure of the country: centre, states and union territories. Union territories were entities, which were directly administered by the centre, owing to special provisions. These provisions were: geographic location, the demography, the linguistic factors if any. 

So, due to the above reasons, the decisions of the ministers to be communicated to the president, hold sense. However, the interference soon became inevitable in Delhi and Puducherry. These are the only states which have legislature of their own and council of ministers. The agendas of the elected government  in these union territories (belonging to a party different from that of central government) often increases the conflict.

Resolving the conflict

1. The constitutional discourse is the best discourse. However, in constitution, wisdom of administering the union territories with legislature (Delhi and Puducherry) are not defined. And, it is not possible to define such limits. Therefore, the accountability of the government to the people, is the only criteria, to excel in. This will be possible, only by avoiding conflict with Lieutentant Governor. 

2. Even if there is undue interference from the central government, the court of law can come to rescue. Supreme court is the final interpreter of the constitution and, an appeal can be filed. The appeal will relate to federal scheme of the constitution. This will help in resolving the conflict.

Can also write one point in resolving the confict:
Art 239 which states that LG will act independently of the aid and advise of council of ministers, Do we need this provision? Can it be diluted ? Because the virtual veto of LG is anyway creating the problem.
It would be wise to be a much less legal and constitutional frameowrk. Diluting constitutional provisions: by amendments, can be a way forward. 
So, it can be best written in one line - "exisiting constitutional frameowrk for the administration of Delhi to be reviewed to make the elected government less dependent on the Lt. Governor" (taken from Hindu, Letters to the Editor.