Delhi

The question of Delhi’s statehood has long been a topic of considerable debate, raising discussions about its legal and political standing within the Indian Union. As the capital, it holds a unique position, straddling the line between being a national hub and an autonomous entity with its own governance structure. This dual identity has made Delhi the focal point of repeated administrative experiments, each trying to balance the priorities of national governance with local democratic aspirations.

Before independence, Delhi was a part of the North West Provinces as well as Oudh (present-day UP). In 1849, the East India Company transferred Delhi to the British Punjab, where it remained as a division till 1911. This period saw Delhi transforming from a historical Mughal center to a strategic administrative outpost for British colonial rule. The city’s positioning within Punjab gave it a marginal provincial status, even though it retained symbolic importance as a former imperial capital under the Mughals (Khan, 2024).

During the second Coronation Durbar in 1911, King George V declared Delhi the new capital of India, replacing Calcutta (Khan, 2024). This move was not merely symbolic; it was motivated by the British desire to govern India from a more central location, strategically situated and closer to the power bases of northern India. In 1912, Delhi was announced as a chief commissioner’s province with William Malcolm Hailey as the first incumbent. This administrative upgrade signaled the beginning of Delhi’s emergence as a city of national political significance (Ferrell, 1969).

The name ‘New Delhi’ (also known as 'Lutyens Delhi') was given in 1927. Despite the decision being made in 1911, imperial administration shifted from Calcutta to Delhi only in 1931, once the Lutyens construction was completed. Designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker, this area became the seat of imperial power with sprawling bungalows, wide roads, and grand buildings like the Rashtrapati Bhavan and North and South Blocks (Ridley, 1998). When India became independent, Delhi continued as the capital of India. Since it was already administered by a chief commissioner, it was classified as a centrally administered Part C state when India adopted its Constitution on 26 January 1950. Part C states were those that had a centrally appointed Chief Commissioner or Lieutenant Governor, unlike the Part A and B states, which had more autonomy (Sahoo, 2018).

In 1951, the Government gave Delhi a council of ministers responsible for the local legislature and to aid the chief commissioner. This also gave Delhi its first CM, Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Yadav of the INC, albeit with limited legislative powers in 1952. His government was responsible for handling civic affairs, but lacked real power in key areas such as policing, land acquisition, and finance—issues that would continue to plague Delhi’s governance in the decades to come (Oldenberg, 1974).

When the States Reorganisation Commission was constituted in 1953, there were requests to create a Greater Delhi State, including districts from UP, Punjab, and Rajasthan. Simultaneously, 97 MLAs put forth a memorandum demanding the merger of the western and hill districts of UP and Delhi (Singh, 2016). These demands reflected growing concerns about administrative efficiency and regional development. A larger Delhi state, proponents argued, would allow for more cohesive planning and improved governance in the fast-growing metropolitan region.

In opposition, G.B. Pant and P.B. Tandon intervened and gave a counter memorandum to the SRC urging it to retain the existing boundaries of UP since it allowed for large-scale developmental projects. Both, K. M. Panikker and B. R. Ambedkar, were not pleased with Pant's argument. They believed that the issue of Delhi’s governance went beyond administrative convenience and deserved a more democratic structure responsive to the needs of its citizens (Ambedkar, 1955; SRC Report 1955).

The SRC rejected both requests, to preserve the dyarchical structure of dual control that existed—central control of the national capital along with state-level autonomy. Delhi was therefore made a Union Territory under the direct administration of the government. The rationale was that, as the national capital, Delhi could not be subject to the political whims of a state government, particularly in matters affecting national interest (Sridhar, 2023). 

In 1961, the Government of India passed the Government of Union Territories Act, which allowed for Legislative Assemblies and councils of ministers in some large Union Territories, but Delhi stood 'in a class by itself,' indicating its unique status. This exceptionalism reflected the central government’s view that Delhi, unlike other UTs like Puducherry or Chandigarh, needed special treatment due to its political and diplomatic sensitivities (Rastogi, 2022).

As a compromise, the Delhi Administration Act (1966) was passed. The Act reconstituted the Municipal Corporation as the Metropolitan Council, marginally expanded its powers, and redesignated the centrally appointed officer from Chief Commissioner to Lieutenant Governor. However, the Metropolitan Council remained largely advisory, and power continued to be concentrated in the hands of the LG and the central government (Sahoo, 2018).

Thereafter, in 1985, Parliament passed the National Capital Region Planning Board Act. This act imagined the development and evolution of policies for the national capital of Delhi as well as the surrounding districts from the neighbouring states. This cohesive region, as per the 1985 Act, was designated as the National Capital Region (NCR). Spanning 23 districts, the region was (and continues to be) over 23 times the area of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi. It represented a major shift toward integrated regional planning, attempting to tackle issues of pollution, housing, traffic, and employment that transcend Delhi’s borders (Gupta, 1995).

In 1987, the Centre finally created the Sarkaria Committee to deal with the Delhi issue (Sahoo, 2018). The committee recommended continuing Delhi as a UT with the lieutenant governor as administrator, but also providing for a popular government in the form of an elected legislative assembly. This recommendation tried to address the demand for greater democratic accountability without compromising the central government’s control over the capital.

Finally, Delhi was constituted as a Union Territory with a Legislative Assembly, the council of ministers, and an elected chief minister with a limited mandate as per the NCT of Delhi Act, 1991, which provided Delhi a special status vis-a-vis the other UTs (Rastogi, 2022). This Act was a landmark step in Delhi’s governance structure, formalising a semi-state model with clearly delineated powers for the local government and the Lieutenant-Governor (LG). However, the Act retained significant powers for the LG, especially in areas like land, police, and public order, which remained under the central government’s purview.

Madan Lal Khurana

In 1993, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won a majority in what were the first legislative assembly elections. Madan Lal Khurana was made the Chief Minister of Delhi. His government focused on infrastructure and urban planning, but quickly encountered friction with the LG’s office over jurisdictional matters (Khan, 2024).

Since the attainment of partial statehood, pressing matters of concern have been the office of the LG, which has overriding powers, especially in matters concerning land, law and order, and appointment of senior officials, and the expanding population of Delhi NCR. These issues have led to repeated legal battles and political standoffs, most notably between the elected government and the LG’s office. As Delhi’s population grows and its urban sprawl continues to expand, the question of who governs the city remains as relevant and unresolved as ever.

References

1. Ambedkar, B. R. (1955). Thoughts on Linguistic States. 

2. Ferrell, D. W. (1969). Delhi, 1911-1922: society and politics in the new Imperial capital of India [Doctoral Thesis]. The Australian National University (Australia). 

3. Gupta, A. K. (1995). National Capital Region. Architecture Plus Design, 12(6), 73. 

4. Khan, M. (2024). Delhi (National Capital Territory). In The Territories and States of India 2024 (pp. 369-378). Routledge. 

5. Oldenburg, P. K. (1974). Big City Government In India: Councilor, Administrator, And Citizen In Delhi [Doctoral dissertation], The University of Chicago. 

6. Rastogi, P. (2022). Examining the Role of Power Dynamics between the Union and Delhi Government. International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Vol.5, Issue 1. 

7. Sahoo, N. (2018). Statehood for Delhi: Chasing a chimaera. ORF Occasional Paper, 156. 

8. Singh, J. (2001). Politics of Harit Pradesh: the case of Western UP as a separate state. Economic and Political Weekly, 2961-2967. 

9. Sridhar, V. K. (2023). Union Territory and Political Parties Demand Delhi Statehood. Madhya Pradesh Journal of Social Sciences, 28(1), 132-143. 

10. States Reorganisation Commission (1955). Report of the States Reorganisation Commission. Ministry of Home Affairs.