HT This Day: May 20, 1966 -- Delhi Bill goes for President’s assent | Latest News India - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

HT This Day: May 20, 1966 -- Delhi Bill goes for President’s assent

By, New Delhi
May 17, 2022 09:15 PM IST

With the approval of the Rajya Sabha today, the Delhi Administration Bill now goes to the President for his assent.

With the approval of the Rajya Sabha today, the Delhi Administration Bill now goes to the President for his assent.

HT This Day: May 20, 1966 -- Delhi Bill goes for President’s assent
HT This Day: May 20, 1966 -- Delhi Bill goes for President’s assent

As they did in the Lok Sabha yesterday, several Opposition and Congress members made repeated attempts to secure more powers for the proposed Metropolitan Council.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

As many as 45 amendments had been proposed but none were acceptable to the Government. At 5 p.m., there was a demand that the House adjourn and take up the Bill at the next session. This was promptly turned down by Mr. J. L. Hathi, Minister of State for Home Affairs, who pointed out that the Opposition leaders had been consulted in the matter and they had agreed to see through the Bill today.

Old ground

Miss Shanta Vashisht, who was most outspoken in her opposition to the Bill, wondered what was the hurry in rushing with the Bill which went “against the aspirations of the people.” During the debate, few new points were raised and the House went over much of the same ground covered by the Lok Sabba yesterday.

Replying to the debate, Mr. Hathi expressed the Government’s inability to concede a legislature to Delhi. There could not be two Governments functioning from the Capital.

He also regretted that it had not been possible to extend financial powers to the council. The question had been examined thoroughly before coming to a decision. Granting for financial powers meant powers to levy tax. The Attorney-General, whose advice had been sought in the matter, had definitely advised against this.

He assured his critics that the council was being set up with a “sincere and honest” motive to associate the people of Delhi in the administration of the Union Territory. He characterized the council as “a step forward from the present” which could be “effective in the hands of the Delhi people . if they can use it.”

Mr Hathi rejected suggestions by Miss Vashisht that the council was being established to please those who were close to the Home Ministry. “I am not one who takes part in dirty politics,” he said.

Earlier, moving the Bill, Mr Hathi said the Bill sought to provide a forum at which the people of Delhi could discuss and have their voice heard on the affairs of the Union Territory. It did not seek to provide a democratic setup for Delhi, UNI adds.

The Bill would provide a unified administration and it was certainly a “step further” from the present set-up.

The Metropolitan Council would have the right to discuss all matters concerning Delhi, including its budget The Executive Council would hold charge of all departments, except law and order.

Mr Hathi briefly explained the changes made by the Joint Select Committee.

He said a Legislative Assembly could not be created for Delhi because even legal opinion was that a Legislature in the Capital was “an unusual thing” where Parliament was functioning.

Bill an ‘eye-wash’

Initiating the debate, Mr Gaure Murhari (SSP) characterized the I Bill as an “eye-wash” meant to be a make-believe for the people of’ Delhi that something was being done for them.

The Bill was being rushed through “to please certain groups of the Congress” which were supporting it.

When there were so many urgent matters, like the DIR and the Orissa famine to merit consideration, it was rather baffling that this Bill should be taken up in such a hurry, he said. It would I be better for the Government to ‘ withdraw the Bill and bring forward another which could satisfy the political aspirations of the people better.

The affairs of Delhi were going from bad to worse and every third day there was a murder in the Capital. The aim of the Government should be to evolve a suitable set-up for the Capital which could at least maintain law and order.

He also accused the Government of setting up different types of administration in different parts of the country in the name of democracy.

‘Meaningless set-up’

Miss Shanta Vashist (Cong.) opposed the Bill as it fell short of the legitimate demand of the people of Delhi for a popular set-up.

She contended that an administrative set-up for the Capital devoid of financial powers was meaningless “What is the use of having merely a debating forum?” she asked. T

he late Mr Shastri and Mr Hathi had given assurances to the people and Congress leaders of Delhi that the question of dele gating financial powers to the proposed Metropolitan Council would be explored.

Reference of the Bill to a joint select committee also held out the belief that the question of financial powers of the Council would be looked into. But the Bill, as reported by the joint select committee, was in no way different from the original Bill presented to Parliament in November last. She could not. therefore, see any reason for rushing through the present Bill.

Miss Vashist asserted that Mr M. C. Setalvad could not have expressed any other opinion than the one he had tendered before the committee after studying the speeches of the Home Minister and the measures the Government proposed to take in the matter.

Govt warned

She accused the Government of punishing one section of the local Congress on the basis of “false reports and rumors. We will take due action against such an attitude of the Government,” she warned.

Mr M. N. Govindan Nair (CPD also opposed the Bill. He said the Bill was outmoded as the Government had conceded Punjabi Suba after the Bill was referred to the joint select committee. It was also outmoded because of increasing demands for a Greater Delhi and the merger of Delhi with the new State of Hariana.

Mr Nair felt that the Government could have easily waited for some more time instead of rushing through the Bill now because it may be forced very shortly to reorganize the States for “administrative purposes.”

He challenged Mr Hathi’s statement that it would be in the best interests of the administration of Delhi if it was left in the hands of the Centre. “Delhi has already been under the Centre’s rule for the past ten years, but even the basic amenities have not been provided,” he charged.

“The waters of the Jumna and the Najafgarh nulla are still making surreptitious love. Electricity is no better, because of the AC and DC conflict. The buses are late, or they never come. School children study in bitter cold, or scorching heat, in tents,” he added.

People’s demand

Mr Santokh Singh (Cong.) urged the Home Minister to withdraw the Bill and think in terms of giving an Assembly to Delhi, even if it meant taking some more time.

The people and leaders of Delhi had always been demanding a full-fledged Assembly, because that alone could help in the redressal of the grievances of the people of the Union Territory.

The late Mr Shastri had promised that some suitable method would be worked out to give the necessary financial powers to the Metropolitan Council.

Mr Santokh Singh regretted that, the people of Delhi continued to be “second-rate citizens” without any voice in the administration of their affairs.

Authority duplicated

Mr V. M. Chordia (JS) opposed the Bill and said that instead of providing a unified administration, the Bill sought to add yet another authority to the already four existing authorities.

Without financial powers, the Metropolitan Council would be nothing more than a “debating club.” “When even small panchayats enjoy financial powers, why cannot the Metropolitan Council of the Capital of India deal with its financial matters?” he asked.

The original clause that Hindi should be the language of the Council should have been retained, he said.

Mr I.K. Guiral (Cong.) strongly supported the Bill. He said the Bill was brought forward only after long negotiations and with the consent of all groups of the Delhi Congress, including those who now opposed it.

The opposition to the Bill arose because the creation of a Punjabi Suba sparked new hopes to secure a Greater Hariana. Before the decision to form a Punjabi-speaking State, there was no opposition from Congress members to the setting up of a Metropolitan Council for Delhi.

Mr Gujral said no Central Government could think of becoming a guest in its own home-that is in its own national Capital. A Legislature in the Capital along with Parliament would be an anomaly and was against the interests of the country’s Capital.

The Central Government could not obviously work under the authority of a provincial Government, he said.

Group pressure

Mr Abid Ali (Cong.) criticized the Government for wilting under pressures from various groups. He suggested the creation of a Ministry for Delhi and an advisory group to assist it in tackling the civic problems of the Union Territory.

Mr Banke Behari Das (PSP) described the Bill as the “Delhi Mal-administration Bill.” Without financial powers, the Council had ‘ no status. The idea behind the establishment of the Council seemed to be that the Government wanted a “buffer institution” to absorb the shocks of the present mal-administration in the civic bodies in Delhi.

Mr Jagat Narain (Ind.) demanded the withdrawal of the Bill. Instead of duplicating and multipl1. cating civic bodies and thereby incurring heavy doses of expenditure. the present Corporation could be streamlined and be made more effective by delegating more powers to it.

Dr Chitta Basu (Forward Bloc) opposed the Bill and wholeheartedly agreed that it was an “Mal-administration Bill,” The Bill was dangerous, because it took away the long-cherished “hopes and aspirations” of the people of Delhi to manage their own affairs.

Dr P. N. Sapru (Cong.) felt it was desirable to allocate more responsibilities to the Metropolitan Council.

Unveiling Elections 2024: The Big Picture', a fresh segment in HT's talk show 'The Interview with Kumkum Chadha', where leaders across the political spectrum discuss the upcoming general elections. Watch now!

Get Current Updates on India News, Election 2024, Mukhtar Ansari Death News Live, Bihar Board 10th Result 2024 Live along with Latest News and Top Headlines from India and around the world.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Friday, March 29, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On