Month: May 2023

The dispute over the Krishna River water share between Andhra Pradesh (AP) and Telangana has remained unsolved for nine years since the united state’s breakup.

So far, the resolution has been met

(1) Bachawat tribunal

• The Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT-I) was constituted in 1969 to settle the water-sharing issue between Maharashtra, Karnataka, and AP (before to bifurcation).
• The Tribunal granted AP 811 tmcft (thousand million cubic feet) of reliable water.
• Based on the command area formed by each region, the water was later shared in a 512:299 tmcft ratio between Andhra and Telangana.
• The Tribunal suggested moving water from the Tungabhadra Dam to Telangana’s drought-prone Mahabubnagar district, but this suggestion was not followed, causing dissatisfaction.

(2) Water-sharing arrangement after bifurcation

• The AP Reorganisation Act of 2014 made no mention of water shares because the KWDT-I Award was still in effect and did not specify region-specific allocations.
• During a conference organised by the Ministry of Water Resources in 2015, the two states agreed to an ad hoc agreement of sharing water in a 34:66 ratio (Telangana: Andhra).
• The agreement was intended to be reviewed once a year.
• The Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and the Godavari River Management Board (GRMB) were established under the Act to manage water resources.

Each state’s claims

• Telangana claims that it is entitled to a minimum of 70% of the 811 tmcft allotment based on global practises and basin factors.
• Telangana emphasises how AP diverts approximately 300 tmcft of water from within the basin, harming Telangana’s drought-prone areas.
• AP also demands a larger portion of water to defend the interests of command regions that have already been developed.

The position of the centre

• The Centre organised two Apex Council sessions in 2016 and 2020, comprising the Union Minister and the Chief Ministers of Telangana and AP, but no significant progress was made.
• Telangana withdrew its case from the Supreme Court in 2020, on a request from the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS), with the assurance that the subject will be transferred to a Tribunal.
• However, the Centre has taken no action on the problem in over two years, while the two states continue to have disagreements.

Way Forward

• Considering the prolonged dispute and the failure to reach a resolution, it is crucial for all stakeholders to take proactive steps. The following measures could be considered:
• Mediation: Appoint an independent organisation or mediator to support negotiations between the two states and aid in the discovery of a fair and mutually acceptable solution.
• Conduct a detailed scientific study of the basin parameters, water requirements, and the impact of present water utilisation practises to inform water share allocation.
• Raising public awareness about the necessity of water conservation, effective use, and sustainable practises in order to minimise total demand on water resources.
• Recommendations implementation: Implement the recommendations of earlier tribunals and committees to ensure equitable allocation of water resources and to address both governments’ grievances.
• More considerations: Encourage an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration between AP and Telangana in order to cooperatively manage and utilise the Krishna River’s water resources for the benefit of both areas.
• To achieve a fair and just outcome for all parties involved, the central government must play an active role in facilitating discourse, providing essential support, and speeding the resolution process.

Source: https://jalshakti-dowr.gov.in/division/krishna-water-disputes-tribunal/#:~:text=The%20Central%20Government%20Vide%20Notification,(ISRWD)%20Act%2C%201956.

The power battle between the Delhi government and the Central government has recently taken a significant turn. The unanimous acknowledgment of the Delhi government’s jurisdiction over administrative services by the Supreme Court marked an emancipation of the people’s desire. However, the Central government’s subsequent promulgation of an ordinance to annul the court’s verdict has subverted the Delhi government’s power and returned it to Central government appointees.

The struggle for control by the Delhi government

• Control is being taken away: In 2015, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs delegated authority of administrative services from the elected Delhi administration to the Lieutenant Governor (LG), a Union government nominee. The Delhi government’s operations were substantially hampered as a result of this judgement.
• Day-to-day Issues: The transfer of control over services caused day-to-day challenges in the operation of critical departments. The constant turnover of secretaries resulted in a lack of consistency, vision, and efficiency in governance.
• Frequent changes of Officials: The Delhi administration experienced frequent changes of officials, limiting their capacity to become acquainted with the departments in which they worked. This frequent reshuffling hampered the government’s ability to provide effective governance and hampered relief operations during emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Lack of Functional Control: Because the elected government lacked functional control over services, it encountered difficulties punishing errant personnel and dealing with issues such as vacancies, vigilance investigations, and corruption cases. The government also saw a large number of vacancies in critical positions as a result of the Lieutenant Governor’s mismanagement.
• Conflicting orders: Officials faced a problem in executing orders since they felt obligated to honour the wishes of the elected government stated by the people while also remaining functionally under the LG’s supervision. This caused consternation and hampered effective decision-making.
• Lack of Accountability: The LG-controlled Services Department declined to address queries asked by Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in the Vidhan Sabha. This hampered transparency and accountability, preventing MLAs from learning about vacancies, corruption cases, and other issues.
• Official Penalties: Honest and effective officials were frequently penalised for their virtues and subjected to punitive assignments. This produced an unclear climate and inhibited officials from carrying out their jobs properly.

The intervention of the Supreme Court in the Delhi government’s quest for control

• Recognition of Delhi Government jurisdiction: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged the Delhi government’s jurisdiction over administrative services. A five-judge Bench unanimously supported the government’s power, assuring that the elected administration would make decisions on appointments and transfers.
• The Court’s decision restored the chain of accountability, which included the people, the legislature, the government, and the bureaucracy. It reaffirmed the premise that elected governments have the authority to rule and make bureaucratic decisions.
• The judgement of the Supreme Court authorised the elected Delhi administration to make appointments and transfers based on performance and merit. It enabled the government to take action against errant personnel and successfully implement its programmes.
• Efficient and Compassionate Bureaucracy: The Court’s decision paved the way for a bureaucracy that is efficient, honest, responsive, accountable, and compassionate. It clarified officials’ roles and responsibilities, allowing them to work towards the growth of Delhi and the welfare of its people.
• Clarification on the Services Department: The intervention of the Court clarified the position of the Services Department, which had previously refused to answer queries asked by MLAs in the Vidhan Sabha. The decision meant that the elected government maintained functional control over the department, allowing for transparency and accountability.
• Encouragement to Overhaul the Bureaucracy: Empowered by the Court’s judgement, the Delhi government sought to overhaul the bureaucracy. It aimed to create a skilled administration model by building on the success of its health and education programmes.

The Importance of the Supreme Court Decision

• Maintaining Democratic Principles: The Supreme Court decision recognising the Delhi government’s power over administrative services preserves democratic ideals. It acknowledges the role of elected governments in decision-making and governance by guaranteeing that the will of the people expressed via voting is recognised.
• Accountability Restored: The judgement restores the chain of accountability that includes the people, the legislature, the government, and the bureaucracy. It explains the roles and responsibilities of elected government and bureaucracy, promoting transparency and accountability.
• Empowering Elected Government: By acknowledging the elected Delhi government’s control, the Court authorises the government to make performance-based appointments and transfers. It helps the government to take action against wayward officials and successfully implement its programmes, resulting in better governance.
• Improving Governance: The decision opens the path for an efficient, honest, and responsive bureaucracy. It assures that officials strive for the advancement of Delhi and the well-being of its citizens. It fosters excellent governance practises by promoting vision, consistency, and efficiency in governance.

The impact of the Central Government’s order on Delhi’s power dynamics

• Control Change: The edict effectively returned authority of services in Delhi to the Central government’s chosen Lieutenant Governor (LG). This judgement overturns the Supreme Court’s order recognising the elected Delhi government’s power over administrative services. It weakens the elected government’s authority and concentrates power in the hands of the LG.
• Subverting the Democratic Process: The ordinance undermines the democratic process by ignoring the role of the elected government in concerns of services. It diminishes the significance of the citizen vote and decreases officials’ accountability to elected representatives. This action contradicts the ideas of cooperative federalism and delegitimizes opposition-led governments.
• Policy Implementation Disruption: The ordinance impedes the elected government’s implementation of policies and programmes. It gives the LG sole control over services, which could lead to opposing opinions and impediments to implementing the government’s policies. This can lead to governance delays, inefficiencies, and a lack of coordination.
• Disempowerment of Elected Government: By handing the LG extensive decision-making powers, the ordinance disempowers the elected Delhi government. It restricts the government’s capacity to choose officers who support its policies and objectives, undercutting the idea of an accountable and responsive administration.
• Potential for friction and Inefficiency: Because the LG can veto the Chief Minister’s opinions, the ordinance presents the prospect of friction between the LG and the elected government. This might lead to disagreements and impede effective decision-making and collaboration between the two entities. A lack of coordination and cooperation can result in bureaucratic delays, inefficiencies, and an inability to meet people’s demands.
• Power Concentration: The ordinance reflects a trend of concentrating power in the hands of the central government and the LG. It institutionalises the use of the Governor/LG role to undermine and weaken democratically elected non-BJP governments. This concentration of authority contradicts federalism and decentralisation ideas.

The way forward

• Respect for Judicial Decisions: It is critical that all stakeholders respect and follow the Supreme Court’s decisions. A functional democracy requires the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Any other legal issues should be pursued through the appropriate legal processes.
• Dialogue and Collaboration: The Central Government and the elected Delhi Government must engage in constructive dialogue and collaboration. Through discussions and negotiations, both entities should attempt to find common ground and resolve their disputes. This will aid in the establishment of a cooperative and inclusive government strategy.
• Clarity on tasks and obligations: The tasks and obligations of the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor should be clearly defined. This will aid in avoiding conflicts and ensuring effective decision-making and policy implementation. It is critical to establish clear guidelines for the exercise of authority and cooperation.
• Strengthening Cooperative Federalism: Both the central government and state governments, especially the Delhi government, should adhere to cooperative federalist ideals. Respecting the autonomy and authority of elected state governments, as well as promoting genuine partnership for the benefit of the people, is part of this.
• Efforts should be made to build effective governance structures that promote transparency, accountability, and efficiency. Streamlining administrative processes, guaranteeing prompt appointments and transfers, and developing performance-based evaluation systems for officials are all part of this.
• Public Participation & Engagement: Involving the public in decision-making and policy formation can foster a sense of ownership and improve governance quality. Public engagement platforms, such as citizen feedback mechanisms and public consultations, should be built to ensure that people’s opinions are heard.
• Institutional Strengthening: It is critical to strengthen democratic institutions, especially the judiciary and administrative organisations. Maintaining their independence, ensuring merit-based nominations, and encouraging professionalism and accountability within these institutions would all help to ensure successful governance.
• Focus on Development and Welfare: Regardless of power dynamics, the major focus should be on Delhi’s development and welfare. Efforts should be made to provide necessary services, address pressing concerns, and enact policies that address citizens’ needs and ambitions.

@the end

In Delhi, the war for control between the elected administration and the Central government has seen both the emancipation and subversion of the people’s will. It is critical that all parties engaged prioritise citizens’ well-being and collaborate to develop a cooperative and inclusive governing structure. By doing so, Delhi would be able to overcome the hurdles created by the power struggle and strive for effective government that meets its people’s demands and ambitions.

Source: https://theprint.in/politics/centre-brings-ordinance-on-control-of-services-in-delhi/1584504/