Federalism- Lt. Governor versus Delhi Government

AAP/Delhi Government passing an emergency resolution against centre order, how can we understand it constitutionally? Can u throw some light on such resolutions or such power of assembly?

Constitutionally, both Union Territories and State Government have their own jurisdictions, their governance and roles/ responsibilities. Centre has its own jurisdictions. In this case, Since Delhi being the capital of the country, there is a different arrangement in the implementation of Law and order. UT feels that centre is encroaching into its territory.

All through these years right from the freedom the setup has evolved over a period of years which has been successful so far.

When there is a different party in the centre and different party in the state, the difference of opinion exists and its quite natural. it gets resolved over a period of time and by mutual discussions.

As I look at it, they are passing resolutions asking parliament to review the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission and the article 155 /156 to allow state legislatures to have the power to impeach governors and Lt. governors.

In my opinion, the Delhi Government doesn't seem to understand their roles and responsibilities and their jurisdictions.. Appointing Governors and Lt. Governors is a different role which they want to possess.

Sometimes, i feel the executives who have assumed post in the delhi assembly need to have more maturity in analysing things and working for the development of the people rather than analysing how to review the constitution/ amend the constitution etc. (This is my personal opinion) You should not be biased on this.

Keep referring the judgement/ news and the versions that are coming from the SMEs.

Executive Committees and State's External Debt

#1: What is the difference between a High Powered Committee, Empowered Committee & a High Level Committee

Governments appoint committees to go over issues, study them and submit report on way forward. Sometimes the committees are empowered to take action, sometimes only recommendation, sometimes only on one particular issue, sometimes advisory and sometimes investigative

They can appoint committees as the situation demands or is assessed

Sir, could you elaborate a bit further on the Difference between Empowered Committee v/s High Powered committe v/s High Level Committee. I found composition of committees had nothing to do with their name. All three at times had private persons/ Civil Servants/ juicial members

Vishu, you are right. By definition, an empowered committee is given powers to investigate and take action, high level committee already has people with position and power to act, although the purpose could be restricted to investigation and recommendatory

Expert committees are specialists on the field of investigation; Task force is constituted for achieving a restricted purpose. So govts can constitute them at will and for specific purposes and their composition is also not defined - it can vary from one to another

So it's all to do with their mandate, is that so sir? As in an empowered committee would generally be constituted to investigate an take action, high powered may/may not take action and high level would submit recommendations. Am I on the right track sir?

They may not fall in distinct categories and definitions- can vary from time to time. But logically, yes.

Finally, the reports help the govt to follow its process whether legislative or through executive powers to address the issues based on the reports of the committees

#2: Whether state governments are allowed to borrow externally or not

States dealing directly with WB/IMF?

Yes through a sovereign guarantee of the centre

Decentralisation has taken place and the Fin institutions are allowed to directly deal with the Stares for projects.

Do states have their own sovereign bonds that they can issue?

No.

That is why the sovereign guarantee if the centre. But packages need not be routed only thru the centre. Direct dealing in projects is not allowed. States can negotiate for particular project and seek centres clearance

Why were States withheld from doing so earlier sir? Same arrangement of centre ratifying could have allowed earlier

Well, fear of profligacy, economic discipline and probably maturity

In a globalised era , states for ex Gujarat could organize events like vibrant Gujarat where even IFIs come to participate and fund projects

FRBM has also suggested that States should be allowed; is that owing to the maturity clause you mentioned?

A country of our size cannot exclusively depend on unitary decision making on developmental issues.