Delhi’s coaching centre deaths have once again spotlighted not just the problem of waterlogging but also the impact on civic governance due to a power tussle between the elected government of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor’s administration.
While the police try to find out the officials responsible, a series of letters between Delhi urban development minister Saurabh Bharadwaj and chief secretary Naresh Kumar – seen by Newslaundry – from February to June now suggest there was a lack of cordial communication on the issue of flood control.
This comes amid a political slugfest between the AAP and BJP, and the Delhi government’s allegation that the L-G’s administration had ignored its directions to desilt drains. And three months after the Delhi High Court stressed the need for a unified command to avoid the “blame game” between agencies on the issue of flooding.
The tenure of Kumar, who is seen as L-G V K Saxena’s pick, has been extended twice by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs since last year, and has been marked by several allegations by the AAP government of bypassing the elected government’s authority. The Kejriwal government often butts heads with the Narendra Modi government in Delhi – a tipping point was the centre’s controversial Delhi ordinance, which hands over the power to transfer bureaucrats in Delhi to the L-G.
Newslaundry had earlier detailed Kumar’s tenure and the AAP government’s claims against him, including a “death threat” to Bharadwaj, sending service proposals “directly” to the L-G, and “bypassing the chief minister and the National Capital Civil Service Authority”.
The letters
In a letter on May 20, Bharadwaj directed Kumar to send a status report on desilting of drains under the irrigation and flood control department, municipal bodies and the public works department. The minister had sought information within a week on the timeline for completion of desilting work apart from its current status.
In the absence of a response for 15 days, the minister wrote another letter to the chief secretary on June 5, seeking the same information within a day.
“You will recall that last year Delhi had faced severe water logging during monsoon season. From our past experience, all the concerned departments must be proactive this year to avoid repetition of such a situation in Delhi but not much preparations have been noticed till date,” the letter read, adding that desilting is crucial to avoid waterlogging.
“It’s been 15 days since i asked for the status report but neither have you submitted the status report nor have you sent any response to my UO (unofficial) note. This is unexpected from a senior IAS officer,” it stated.
This time, Kumar responded the same day, saying that he had asked the head of the department and the additional chief secretary of the urban development department for necessary action on receiving the minister’s first letter on May 20. “No report/response received from ACS (UD) in this regard so far.”
Though it did not contain the status report, it mentioned that the issue of waterlogging in Delhi is “under active consideration” of the high court since February and departments concerned have filed their action taken reports before the Integrated Drainage Management Cell which then submitted those to the court.
“It is not out of the context to mention that monsoon enters NCT of Delhi near about in the last week of June/first week of July, and therefore appropriate actions are being taken by the concerned departments to deal with the existing issues. Waking up at the last moments would not be sufficient to take appropriate actions to avoid water-logging in the city, as the issues were lying unattended for a considerable long period,” it read.
Kumar also questioned the timing of the minister’s letter as the model code of conduct was in force due to the Lok Sabha elections. “Further, the desire of hon’ble minister to review this matter vide UO note dated 20/5/2024 during the imposition of model code of conduct, especially when this matter is already under the active consideration of hon'ble high court and widely reported in the media, is not clear.”
‘Lame excuse’
Kumar’s response triggered another reply from minister Bharadwaj on June 14 terming the language of his letter “offensive”. He also wrote that the chief secretary was giving a “lame excuse” for his failure to provide the required information.
Marking a copy of the letter to the Union home secretary, Bharadwaj highlighted Kumar’s “waking up late” remark and asked him to clarify the reference in that sentence.
Bharadwaj also complained that none of the heads of departments had attended a meeting called by him on February 13 regarding a “comprehensive strategy of scientific drain management to avoid waterlogging in Delhi”. “Most of the departments’ HoDs were complacent in the matter to such an extent that none of the HoDs attended the meeting.”
Bharadwaj had flagged the absence of HoDs in another letter to Kumar on February 23 seeking action. “Due to lack of inter-departmental coordination among various departments of government of NCT Delhi, noticed in the last monsoon, a meeting of all concerned departments of GNCTD was called by undersigned on February 13, 2024. However, it was observed that no department head/secretary attended the meeting to bring all concerned departments on the same page to avoid recurrence of the same situation faced during the last monsoon season.”
On Kumar’s reference to the ongoing writ petition before the high court, Bharadwaj, in the letter on June 14, asked whether there is any order preventing the chief secretary from providing desilting-related information to the “elected government”. “It is very unfortunate that the chief secretary has been submitting ATRs to the high court without even sharing the same with the elected government.”
On the reference to the model code of conduct, Bharadwaj claimed that Kumar was seen with RWA members in colonies part of south Delhi constituencies in the presence of BJP candidate Rambir Singh Bhiduri in April when the code was in force.
“Chief secretary Naresh Kumar is again trying to make a futile excuse of model code of conduct, whereby it is well understood that there is no bar on asking for reports of department even during the model code of conduct….it is better that chief secretary should not take shelter of such rules of model code of conduct,” it read.
Newslaundry reached out to the chief secretary’s office for comment. This report will be updated if a response is received.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
