Roving Parliament cannot curb pollution

The Arvind Kejriwal government had argued in Supreme Court last month that the Constitution does not specifically name New Delhi as the Capital of India. Of course, Article 239AA, added by the 69th Constitutional amendment of 1991, names a National Capital Territory that, not surprisingly, corresponds to and includes the areas called New Delhi so that argument does not wash. Nevertheless, the suggestion this week by an AIADMK lawmaker to have future Parliament sessions in cities other than the Capital deserves some thought.

Given the highly energetic activities of MPs in both Houses, the enervating effect of hazardous air pollution naturally arouses concern. If cricketers can be laid low by Delhi’s toxic miasma, our indefatigable parliamentarians cannot be expected to remain immune. A move to more salubrious climes in winter has uncomfortable echoes of the Raj era summer shift to Shimla, but as there is a post-Independence precedent in Jammu & Kashmir, the proposal may find some traction.

However, any move by MPs to skip town rather than get to grips with the pollution issue is likely to be viewed rather dimly by smogged-out Delhiwallahs who do not have that luxury. No other country has a roving Parliament yet and the logistical implications are enormous.