Atishi, a prominent member of AAP and considered a close aide of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, has been living in the designated CM residence for a few months. The dispute over her removal has added fuel to the already strained relations between the state and central governments. While the Centre claims that the eviction order follows protocol and legal precedent, AAP leaders have described it as a politically motivated move aimed at undermining the elected government of Delhi.
The incident stems from the unique administrative arrangement of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, where governance is shared between the elected state government and the centrally appointed Lieutenant Governor (LG). The division of power has often been contentious, with disputes over jurisdiction flaring up periodically. The central government, through the LG, retains control over several key aspects of Delhi’s governance, including land, police, and public order. The eviction of Atishi has again brought into focus the complexities of this relationship, which often sees AAP accusing the Centre of using its powers to interfere in state matters.
Atishi has been vocal about the issue, alleging that the timing of her eviction is designed to disrupt the functioning of the Delhi government. In her response, she pointed out that her residence at the CM's house was only temporary and justified it as a logistical necessity due to the unavailability of other accommodation. She stressed that her work as an education minister requires stability and the ability to coordinate closely with other departments. Kejriwal’s administration has been credited with reforms in education, and Atishi has played a central role in driving those changes. The eviction, according to AAP, is an attempt to derail such ongoing initiatives by creating disruptions in governance.
The Centre, however, has dismissed these claims, stating that the eviction is purely an administrative action and not a political one. Officials pointed out that the occupation of the Chief Minister’s residence by other ministers is not in line with standard procedures, and that Atishi was merely being asked to vacate in accordance with rules that apply to government accommodation. AAP’s contention, however, is that such rules have often been selectively enforced, with ministers from other political parties being allowed leniency in the past.
This episode adds another layer to the deepening conflict between the Delhi government and the Centre, which has escalated over the years. The 2021 Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, which effectively gave more powers to the LG at the expense of the elected government, had already raised concerns about the erosion of democratic governance in the state. AAP leaders have often accused the central government of using the LG’s office to control key decisions, effectively reducing the state government's authority over important areas such as infrastructure development, education policy, and public welfare schemes.
The eviction drama also has electoral undertones. Delhi has been a political battleground for AAP and BJP, with the two parties often at loggerheads over governance issues. AAP has positioned itself as a party working for the common people, highlighting its achievements in health, education, and public services, while accusing the Centre of trying to sabotage these efforts. The BJP, on the other hand, has repeatedly countered by accusing AAP of overstepping its authority and engaging in confrontational politics.
This clash has wider ramifications, particularly in light of the upcoming general elections. As the battle lines between AAP and BJP grow sharper, incidents such as the eviction of Atishi are likely to be framed within a larger narrative of control and autonomy in governance. AAP’s critics argue that the party tends to paint every administrative action as politically motivated, which could resonate with its voter base but risks alienating moderate voters who are tired of the constant conflict. On the other hand, AAP’s ability to tap into the sentiment of being victimized by an overbearing Centre could also strengthen its standing among its supporters.
From a legal perspective, the rules governing government accommodations, particularly those tied to the residence of the Chief Minister, are being scrutinized. Constitutional experts have pointed out that while the Centre does have a say in matters of land and housing in Delhi, it is also essential to balance this with respect for the elected government’s autonomy. The question of who gets to decide such matters—whether it should rest with the LG or with the Delhi government—is likely to spark further debates, possibly leading to another round of legal confrontations.