By HT Correspondent
Amidst controversies and political debates, LG Anil Baijal has dissolved the Delhi government’s think tank temporarily, a move that was met with sharp criticism from the Aam Aadmi Party. The ruling AAP in Delhi termed this “petty politics,” setting up yet another event in the power dynamics between the Delhi government and the office of the Lieutenant Governor.
What may have been most erosive to the AAP’s governance agenda, however, is the dissolution of the Delhi government’s think tank. Set up with the mandate to advise on strategic policy recommendations across various sectors, its dissolution, even if temporary, has led to apprehensions regarding not only policy continuity but the role of independent advisory bodies in shaping the development agenda for Delhi.
AAP leaders have repeatedly accused LG Baijal of being in collusion with the BJP, as a result of which he is thwarting the Delhi government of its autonomy, and his partisan games might end up putting brakes on all the policy initiatives in process. They said that such decisions undermine democratic principles and the mandate given to the elected representatives by the people of Delhi.
The other way around, the defenders of the decision taken by LG Baijal cite administrative reasons and procedural considerations behind the move. They argue that restructuring or temporary dissolution of advisory bodies falls within the ambit of the responsibilities of the Lieutenant Governor while ensuring effective governance and accountability.
More Read
The current standoff between the Delhi government and the office of its Lieutenant Governor is not new. There have been recurring reports of jurisdiction and decision-making tassels for the past many years. Tensions underline broader challenges in India’s federal structure, particularly regarding the division of powers between elected state governments and centrally appointed officials.
As events unfold, all stakeholders on both sides remain vocal, underscoring the need for open governance, cooperation between institutions, and an embedded 값을 regime of constitutionalism. Considering its outcome, this controversy will likely diffuse into the nature of governance dynamics in Delhi and perhaps even influence future interactions between state regimes and the central authorities.
