HC sets aside Delhi mayor’s order to hold repoll for civic body panel

The court directed mayor Shelly Oberoi to declare the results to the polls conducted on February 24.

The Delhi high court on Tuesday set aside an order by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) mayor Shelly Oberoi calling for fresh elections to six members of the 18-member standing committee, and directed her to declare the results to the polls conducted on February 24.

Justice Purushaindra Kaurav said that mayor Shelly Oberoi’s decision to reject the ballot of one of the persons was bad in law. (PTI)

The high court verdict has cleared one of the major sticking points that had held back the constitution of the most important and powerful panels of the civic body, and paved the way for the formation of various committees that are vital for civic administration.

The mayor had on February 24 announced fresh elections after holding that one vote as invalid. Though municipal officials said that both the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won three seats each in the Standing Committee, the mayor did not formally announce the results. Instead, she ordered a repoll, prompting two BJP councillors --- Shikha Rai and Kamaljeet Sehrawat --- move the high court.

Justice Purushaindra Kaurav said that Oberoi’s decision to reject the ballot of one of the persons was bad in law. The court also said that the rejected ballot should also be counted and taken into consideration before declaring the result.

“The writ petitions are found to be maintainable. The action of the mayor/returning officer of rejecting the ballot and declaring it to be invalid, after the stage of scrutiny had reached and the quota successfully ascertained; the same is bad in law. The decision of repoll by the mayor is impermissible as the same was not based on any material relevant to the issue. The decision of the mayor was in excess of powers conferred by the applicable law. The actions were without any power or authority and taken without jurisdiction,” the court said in a 76-page order.

The court had stayed mayor’s order on February 25, and reserved its order on May 12.

Oberoi on Tuesday said that she “accepts” the court’s decision. “We hold the court of law in high regard and thus, accept the decision of the honourable high court. We are committed towards working together to ensure a cleaner and safer Delhi for all, as per the vision of the Delhi chief minister.”

Delhi BJP president Virendra Sachdeva said the mayor did not act in accordance with the prestige of her post. “The high court has cancelled mayor’s order of re-election thereby upholding BJP’s stand. The court has shown the mirror to the AAP by setting aside the decision to hold fresh elections. The court has clearly stated that the mayor’s action was not rational and against the rules. Now, the mayor should call a meeting of the House and declare the result without delay,” he said.

Sehrawat, one of the petitioners, said that she expected the mayor to follow the court’s order. “We expect the AAP to adhere to the court’s direction and declare the results,” she said.

There was no announcement by the municipal secretariat on when the next meeting of the MCD House will be held.

Focus now on aldermen verdict

With the high court order outlining the contours of the six directly elected members of the Standing Committee, the focus will now shift to the second phase of elections to the 12 zonal ward committees.Each ward committee will also elect one member to the Standing Committee, which controls the purse strings of the civic body as well as ratifies the policies before they are discussed and passed in the House.

However, 10 aldermen that are nominated by the lieutenant governor will be playing a crucial role in the indirect elections to the Standing Committee members by ward committees. These aldermen are members of the House but have voting rights only in ward committees, and not in the House.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing an AAP’s challenge to the nomination of aldermen by the LG. While reserving its verdict on May 17, the court remarked that giving powers to the LG to appoint members to the MCD could “destabilise” the democratically elected local self-government, and wondered why appointing aldermen to a municipal corporation should be an issue of great concern for the Union government.

Former MCD chief law officer Anil Gupta said that the high court’s order means that both AAP and the BJP will have three members each in the standing committee, but the real balance of power will depend on the SC verdict. “The elections for ward committees were held up due to this case (nomination of aldermen) and now the corporation can proceed with the subsequent polls. The Supreme Court order will tilt the balance in the favour of one party,” he added.