The world recently was made privy to a scenario where Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, was denied permission to attend the World Cities Summit held in Singapore. The conference, which revolved around urban governance strategies, was peculiarly off-limits to him, as stated by the central government. The situation escalated further when another Delhi state transport minister moved to the high court seeking the abolishment of obligatory travel permissions from Centre for any foreign visits by State government ministers.
The Intricacies of the Issue
Arvind Kejriwal’s invitation to participate in the World Cities Summit had been extended by the Singapore government itself. However, the clearance for his visit was vetoed by the central government. The rejection was rationalized with the reasoning that the summit was primarily populated by mayors. It was also specified that urban governance in Delhi was not solely shouldered by the state government. This denial harked back to 2019 when the MEA refused the Delhi Chief Minister’s proposed visit to Copenhagen, where he was due to attend the 7th C-40 World Mayors Summit without citing any reasons.
The Need for Approvals and its Implications
This brings us to understanding the foundation on which these approvals are sought. The Cabinet Secretariat in 1982 issued guidelines regarding the foreign travel of State government ministers, Union territory and State government officials. These guidelines necessitated clearances from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Ministry of Home Affairs, Finance Ministry, and the Central Administrative Ministry for foreign visits by members in their official capacity.
These provisions later underwent modifications in 2004, such that the final orders needed the stamp of approval from the Finance Ministry. The restructured provisions also stated that Chief Ministers first needed to get a nod from the Prime Minister’s Office before embarking on any official visits. Then in 2010, political clearances were made mandatory for private visits by Ministers in State governments.
The Grounds of the Petition
The recent developments have aroused opposition on specific grounds forming the basis of the petition filed. The opposition argues that these requirements infringe upon the right to privacy and compromise the dignity of the constitutional office of state government ministers. They assert that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Governor’s office to advise against a proposed visit to Singapore. Furthermore, they claim that the arbitrary and unaccounted usage of power by the Central Government and the Governor violates national interest and sound governance principles. This arbitrary usage is seen as an infringement on the right to travel abroad under Article 21. From these unfolding events, it’s clear that a deeper discourse on Centre-State relations and the Governor’s role in a state is necessary.
