None of the former Delhi chief ministers made hue and cry over the Constitutional set-up that elected them the way Kejriwal has been doing repeatedly
The recent strike by Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and a few of his Ministers upset many analysts and commentators, who argued that like any other State, the elected government could not be denied its mandate by the Lieutenant Governor (LG), an appointee of the President of India. Chief Ministers of four States expressed their support to him. Kejriwal stated that Delhi should become a full-fledged State, and has often said that it is a half-State. His predecessor, Sheila Dikshit, at the height of the Nirbhaya agitation had explained that she as the Chief Minister could not be held responsible since Delhi Police did not function under her and that Delhi was not like other States in this respect. In fact, legally speaking these are the wrong questions to ask. The Constitution of India recognises only two categories of geographical entities who have powers laid down in the Constitution itself—States and Union Territories. (The provision for urban and rural local bodies is an enabling provision, not a mandatory one). Delhi is a Union Territory (UT), albeit with an elected legislature.