Barely a week after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in an alleged corruption case, the option of imposing President's Rule in Delhi is reportedly — and disconcertingly — on the table. Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena hinted at it when he said that the Delhi government would not continue to be run from jail. A case is apparently being put together — the last instance when Delhi was brought under President's Rule, in 2014, is being looked at. There is discussion in the capital’s power corridors on Article 239AB, the provision in case of failure of constitutional machinery, and its sub-clauses. The fact, however, is that 2024 is vastly different from 2014 — at that time, President's rule was imposed after CM Kejriwal resigned following the stalling of his party's effort to introduce the Jan Lokpal bill, and it brought to an end the 49-day tenure of a minority government dependent on the Congress's outside support. Now, President's Rule, if imposed, would displace a government with a sweeping majority — 62 seats in a House of 70 — after its chief minister was arrested in controversial circumstances ahead of a national election, with the model code of conduct in force. There are no good arguments — only bad faith — in favour of bringing Delhi under President’s Rule today. It does not need any splitting of legal hairs to say that the L-G is right on one thing — the nation's capital cannot be governed from jail. But having said that, both the Centre and the AAP have to find a different way out. The AAP needs to urgently find a successor to Kejriwal — given the party's structure and functioning, this is easier said than done. Kejriwal’s dominance over his party is air-tight and absolute. It has meant that there is no second line of leadership, and it doesn’t help that the few leaders who could arguably have made the cut are also in jail. But the AAP needs to recognise that its insistence on the continuance of Kejriwal and Kejriwal alone as chief minister is untenable in principle and counter-productive as a strategy. If the AAP needs to reboot and rethink, the responsibility on the Centre is much greater. President's rule would not just undermine representative democracy in general, it would also bode a democratic backsliding in Delhi specifically. Delhi stands at a unique vantage point. With a division of powers between its elected government and the Centre, but with an assembly of its own, it is poised on the edge of full statehood. The imposition of President’s Rule at this juncture would not only be a blow to the Kejriwal government, it would also constitute a strike against the ambitions and aspirations of the electorate. The Centre must immediately dial back on a proposal that may help it score points against a political opponent — but will do grave disservice to the democratic aspirations of citizens in Delhi.
