Delhi, the eternal capital city of India, has had a mixed fortune in governance since the decline of the Mughals. The aftermath of the events of 1857 reduced it to a provincial town of the Punjab, and amenities came to it because of the concerns for the British troops and officials stationed in and around Shahjahanabad, the Walled City. The first municipality of Delhi was created in 1863, ironically in order to "raise funds for the police and for conservancy and such other funds as the members may think fit to expend on works of improvements, education and other local objects..."

Yet, the city charmed Queen Victoria; she held a durbar here upon assuming the title of the Empress of India in 1877, though Calcutta was the capital of British India. Before the durbar was held in 1911 to commemorate the shifting of the capital of India to Delhi, Curzon too held a vice regal durbar in 1903. Obviously, the construction of the new Imperial capital in Delhi created a mixed structure for city governance in which the Central government had strong control.

The status of Chief Commissioner's Province given to Delhi in 1912 continued until January 26, 1950 when the new Constitution made it a `Part C State', a unit enjoying the least autonomy. Decision-making powers were vested in the Chief Commissioner appointed by the Central government. Much later, the States Reorganization Commission (SRC) found this arrangement to be quite an anomalous one as "law and order, local self-government institutions, the Improvement Trust and other statutory boards regulating certain public utility services in Delhi and New Delhi" were not within the purview of the State Legislature and this led to the deterioration of administrative standards. On the recommendation of the SRC, Delhi was made a Union Territory in 1956, but since the SRC felt that the national capital should not become a political arena, Delhi was denied any representative institution. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the only representative institution, did not fulfill the popular urge for a representative government, and thus in 1966 a Metropolitan Council were created. A powerless institution with only recommendatory responsibilities, it was at the mercy of partisan politics.

Insertions made by the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991 creating special provisions with respect to the NCT do not look so unusual as to create such a controversy. Except for denial of powers to the government of the NCT under the provisions relating to law and order and criminal justice as enjoyed by other States and empowering Parliament (by means of the Seventieth Amendment) to revise any provision under Article 239 AA without resort to a constitutional amendment, most of the powers given appear to be similar to those enjoyed by any State government. Obviously, the Transaction of Business Rules, 1993, a classified document, has been framed differently in this case. The deletion of Section 48 of the Rules, which made it mandatory for the NCT government to secure the approval of the Central government before introducing any bill in the Legislative Assembly and restoring it for a Congress government, that too a year before Assembly elections, has caused the furor. Obviously, blatant partisanship is the name of the game.

It is important to point out here that the shape of the governing structure of India's national capital has been an extension of the colonial mindset. The British shifted the capital of the Raj from Calcutta to Delhi in 1911 in order to separate the seat of the Central government from the provincial government. The intention was to isolate their imperial capital from its political surroundings. And, the United States, Canada and Australia provided the model.

National governments and national capitals are bound in a special complementary relationship. The special position of the national or federal government, howsoever federalized a state may be, cannot be denied from any political or constitutional perspective. Capital cities too have national and international functions and responsibilities, which at times supersede the scope, capacities and resources that they command.

Since the capital city is the international window for a country and nation, only a complementary relationship, going beyond narrow partisanship, can ensure good governance.