The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a pressing matter regarding the election of the sixth member of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Standing Committee. This issue arose from a petition filed by Shelly Oberoi, the Mayor and a leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which sought clarity on the circumstances surrounding the election.
During the court session, Justices PS Narasimha and R. Mahadevan posed critical questions to the office of Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor, VK Saxena, emphasising the need for a thorough response to the plea.
The Supreme Court's inquiry focused on the urgency of conducting the election, particularly in the absence of the Mayor. The judges expressed scepticism about the decision made by the Lieutenant Governor's office to hold the election without proper legislative oversight.
They questioned the rationale behind exercising executive powers, highlighting that the use of such powers should not disrupt the democratic process. Justice Narasimha pointedly asked, “What was the tearing hurry in holding the election?” This inquiry underscores the court's concern about maintaining the sanctity of democratic institutions.
During the proceedings, the bench also delved into Section 487 of the Delhi Municipal Act, which grants powers to the Lieutenant Governor regarding the functioning of municipal bodies.
The judges challenged the interpretation of this section, asking how it could be applied to interfere with the legislative functions inherent in an election. Their queries reflected a broader concern about the potential implications of executive overreach in matters that traditionally fall within the purview of elected representatives.
Senior advocate Sanjay Jain, representing the Lieutenant Governor, argued that the Mayor had postponed the election, thus violating a prior court directive that mandated the vacancy be filled within a month.
In contrast, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Mayor Oberoi, urged the court to issue an order halting the election for the Chairman of the Standing Committee until the matter could be thoroughly reviewed.
The court’s response to this request was to advise the LG’s office not to proceed with the elections, signifying the seriousness with which the bench regarded the ongoing legal dispute.
At the heart of the petition lies the claim that the election held on September 27 was unconstitutional. Oberoi contended that the election was conducted under the direction of the Lieutenant Governor and that the Municipal Commissioner, an IAS officer, presided over the meeting instead of the elected Mayor.
She argued that such a decision undermines the democratic process, as only the Mayor has the authority to determine the logistics of meetings concerning the Standing Committee elections.
The Supreme Court's involvement reflects the critical nature of this situation, as the outcome could significantly impact the functioning of the MCD. It raises questions about the boundaries of executive authority and the preservation of democratic principles within municipal governance.
Oberoi's petition specifically highlighted the illegality of having an IAS officer preside over a meeting intended for an elected official, suggesting that this undermines the authority granted to local representatives.
The vacancy for the sixth member arose following the election of BJP's Kamaljeet Sehrawat to the Lok Sabha. The ongoing tensions surrounding the election process illustrate the broader political dynamics at play within the MCD and the intricate relationships between various political entities in Delhi.
As the Supreme Court prepares for further hearings, the stakes are high, with potential implications for the governance of the capital city and the broader principles of democratic representation.
Follow us
