Since the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) swept to power in Punjab in the 2022 assembly elections with a historic mandate, questions have persisted about the financial implications of accommodating Delhi-based party leaders in the state administration. The practice of appointing party functionaries from Delhi to influential positions in Punjab has created a significant financial burden on the state’s already strained treasury, leading to mounting criticism from opposition parties and political analysts alike.
The AAP government in Punjab, led by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, came to power promising transformative governance and financial prudence. However, the appointment of numerous Delhi-based party officials to key advisory and administrative roles has raised concerns about the drain on Punjab’s financial resources. These appointments include political advisors, officers on special duty, and consultants who continue to maintain their primary residences in Delhi while drawing substantial salaries and allowances from the Punjab government.
Critics have pointed out that the Punjab government spends considerable sums on providing accommodation, transportation, and other perks to these Delhi-based officials. Many of these appointees regularly shuttle between Delhi and Punjab, with the state bearing the cost of their frequent travel. This arrangement has been particularly controversial given that Punjab has been grappling with serious financial constraints, including a massive debt burden that reportedly exceeds ₹3 lakh crore.
The financial strain is further exacerbated by the fact that many of these appointments appear to be at senior levels with corresponding high salary packages and allowances. Reports suggest that some advisors and consultants from Delhi receive compensation packages that rival or exceed those of senior bureaucrats in the state. This disparity has fueled resentment among local officials and the public, who question why such resources are being diverted to officials who divide their time between two states.
Opposition parties have been vocal in their criticism of these appointments, characterizing them as political accommodations rather than merit-based selections. The Congress, Shiromani Akali Dal, and BJP have all accused the AAP government of creating a parallel power structure where Delhi-based leaders exercise significant influence over Punjab’s administration while being financially supported by the state’s exchequer. They argue that this practice undermines the principle of fiscal responsibility that the AAP had promised during its election campaign.
The controversy extends beyond mere financial considerations to touch upon questions of regional autonomy and political independence. Critics suggest that these appointments reflect a centralized decision-making approach where policies and administrative decisions for Punjab are effectively being shaped by party leaders based in Delhi. This has led to accusations that the state’s governance is being remote-controlled, with local talent and expertise being sidelined in favor of party loyalists from outside the state.
Defenders of the AAP government argue that these appointments are necessary to implement successful governance models that have been tested in Delhi. They contend that experienced leaders who have been part of the party’s governance initiatives in the national capital bring valuable expertise that can benefit Punjab. The government has also emphasized that these officials are chosen based on their qualifications and experience rather than their geographic origin.
However, this defense has done little to allay concerns about the financial implications of these appointments. Budget analysts have pointed out that in a state struggling with high unemployment, agrarian distress, and infrastructure deficits, the allocation of significant financial resources to support officials from another state appears difficult to justify. Some reports suggest that the combined cost of salaries, allowances, travel expenses, and accommodations for these Delhi-based officials runs into several crores annually.
The issue has also raised legal and administrative questions. While the government has the prerogative to make appointments to advisory positions, the practice of having officials who primarily reside outside the state has led to concerns about accountability and effectiveness. Critics question how officials who spend significant time away from Punjab can fully understand and address the state’s unique challenges and needs.
Public perception of these appointments has been largely negative, with many viewing them as evidence of the AAP leadership’s reluctance to fully trust local leaders in Punjab. This perception is particularly damaging for a party that rose to prominence on an anti-establishment platform and promised to empower local leadership and governance st