Power Without Restraint: LG's Overreach Threatens Delhi's Democracy

Delhi has long stood as a unique experiment in governance, operating under a complex power-sharing arrangement between its elected government and the centrally appointed Lieutenant Governor (LG). This delicate balance, enshrined in the Constitution and clarified through numerous court rulings, is designed to ensure efficient administration while respecting the democratic will of Delhi's nearly 20 million citizens. However, the actions of Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena have cast a long shadow over this arrangement. A series of controversial decisions and apparent overreaches from the LG's office not only disrupt the functioning of Delhi's elected bodies but also raise alarming questions about the future of democracy in the national capital.

At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental tension: how does a city, home to a diverse populace and the seat of India's central government, balance local autonomy with national interests? The framers of our Constitution grappled with this question, resulting in Delhi's present status. Yet, as recent events illustrate, the interpretation and implementation of this status remain contentious, with far-reaching implications for governance and democracy.

Two incidents particularly highlight a troubling pattern of overreach that undermines both the elected government and the will of Delhi's citizens: interference in municipal elections and unauthorized environmental damage. These actions not only challenge legal and constitutional norms but also threaten the very fabric of representative governance in the capital.

One of the more striking examples of the LG's overreach occurred during the MCD standing committee elections. On September 27, 2024, Saxena invoked Section 487 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to expedite elections for the sixth member of the standing committee, bypassing the authority of the elected Mayor, Shelly Oberoi, and disregarding established electoral procedures. The Supreme Court’s intervention was both necessary and telling; it warned that the LG's meddling "endangers democracy," a stark reminder of the constitutional limits on his powers.

Notably, Section 487 does not grant the LG authority to interfere in the legislative processes of elected bodies like the MCD. The court's involvement underscores the serious implications of the LG’s actions, which appear to challenge the clear preferences expressed by voters in the 2022 municipal elections. This raises pertinent questions about the motivations behind such overreach and whether the LG seeks to override the democratic mandate of the electorate.

If the LG’s interference in the MCD elections poses a threat to democratic governance, his actions regarding the Delhi Ridge tree-felling case are a blatant affront to environmental law and governance. In early February 2024, over 420 trees were felled in the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge area, reportedly following direct orders from the LG during an on-site visit. This decision bypassed required permissions from both the Supreme Court and the Tree Authority, as mandated by the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994.

Once again, the Supreme Court intervened to address this violation, with Justice A.S. Oka expressing astonishment at the LG’s “complete non-application of mind.” This incident not only violated legal norms but also undermined Delhi's efforts to combat pollution and preserve its vital green spaces.

While the LG does possess constitutionally granted powers, recent actions suggest a disturbing expansion of this role. The governance of Delhi, with its intricate structure involving both an elected government and a centrally appointed LG, requires a delicate balance. Yet, recent events indicate this balance is being disrupted, with the LG's office seemingly overstepping its constitutional boundaries.

LG V.K. Saxena’s unilateral interference exposes a troubling vulnerability in Delhi's administrative structure. This is not merely a local issue confined to the borders of the National Capital Territory; it serves as a canary in the coal mine, signaling a potential crisis that could have far-reaching implications for democratic governance across India. The repeated interventions by the Supreme Court to check the LG's excesses highlight a systemic failure of institutional safeguards and raise alarming questions about the concentration of power in an unelected office.

What is most alarming about these episodes is the lack of accountability within the institutional framework governing Delhi. The apparent inaction of senior officials from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Delhi government in preventing the tree felling, as well as the absence of objections to the LG’s electoral interference by bureaucrats, suggests a systemic failure. Institutions that are meant to act as checks on executive power appear either too weak or too complicit to hold the LG accountable, leaving politicians and activists at the job of keeping an eye.

The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in curbing these excesses, but lasting change requires more than judicial intervention. It necessitates a reevaluation of the LG’s powers, clearer lines of accountability, and stronger institutional safeguards to ensure that the office is not used as a tool for arbitrary and unchecked executive action. Only by returning focus to serving the people of Delhi and upholding constitutional principles can we ensure that the city’s governance remains representative of its citizens’ wishes. Without these reforms, the dangers posed by the LG’s overreach will continue to threaten Delhi’s democratic institutions and its environmental future.