Cost of ruckus: MCD may recover cost of damage to property from councillors

You break it, you buy it

You break it, you buy it.

The proposal has been made in a letter highlighting the destruction caused during the October 22 meeting of the House of Councillors. (HT Archive)

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is considering recovering the cost of damage to municipal property during chaotic House proceedings directly from councillors found responsible, with the proposed recovery extending to their property tax dues if they fail to deposit the amount in the civic body’s treasury.

The proposal has been made by Narendra Kumar, chairman of the MCD’s Special Committee on Code of Conduct for Councillors, in a letter highlighting the destruction caused during the October 22 meeting of the House of Councillors. The mayor has forwarded the communication to the municipal commissioner, seeking action in accordance with the rules and a report on the steps taken.

The committee has argued that elected representatives cannot claim immunity from criminal or civil liability for deliberately damaging public property during House proceedings. It has maintained that the freedom councillors enjoy to speak and vote in meetings does not protect them from liability for vandalism, assault or wilful destruction of property.

Citing provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Kumar said the corporation had the authority to maintain discipline in the House, but this did not absolve councillors of liability for damaging municipal property.

The proposal also cites the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in State of Kerala v K Ajith, in which the court held that legislative privileges could not be used as a shield against criminal prosecution for acts involving the destruction of public property inside a legislative assembly. It argues that the principles of the judgment are equally relevant to municipal councillors.

The recommendation comes amid repeated disruptions of MCD House meetings, with heated exchanges often escalating into physical altercations and damage to civic property. If accepted, it could introduce a financial accountability mechanism for councillors involved in such incidents. The BJP, too, has seen its councillors engage in ruckus during House proceedings when the party was in opposition. It regained control of the MCD on April 25, 2025.

In August 2024, HT reported that 30 House meetings in 2023-24 were marred by disruptions. Around ₹1 crore was spent on logistics, while damage to microphones, table tops and chairs cost ₹34 lakh. The disruptions also resulted in 3.1 tonnes of paper being wasted, ₹10 lakh being spent on food and snacks, and 51,000 man-hours being lost.

Under the proposed mechanism, the municipal commissioner would direct officials to assess the damage caused during the October 22 meeting, identify the councillors responsible and calculate the repair expenditure. The amount would then be apportioned among those found responsible, with each given adequate notice and an opportunity to deposit their share in the municipal treasury.

The committee has also proposed an alternative recovery mechanism if councillors fail to pay within the stipulated period: the outstanding amount could be added to the property tax demand against properties registered in their names, followed by appropriate recovery proceedings.

“Councillors enjoy certain privileges regarding House proceedings. However, these privileges do not automatically exempt them from criminal or civil liability for assault, vandalism, damage to public property, or other unlawful acts. If a councillor intentionally breaks furniture, damages public property, assaults another person, or commits any other criminal act within the Municipal House, they cannot claim automatic immunity from the law merely because the incident occurred during a meeting,” the communication said.

It further proposed that the repair expenses be deposited under the relevant head of account in the municipal treasury.

Forwarding the communication, the mayor asked the municipal commissioner to examine the recommendations and take necessary action under the rules. “Action should be taken as per rules in respect of the above and the undersigned should be informed about the action taken,” the mayor wrote.