SC pulls up Delhi LG over MCD panel election

The court also orally told the LG not to proceed with the election of the chairman of the standing committee until the petition is heard after two weeks

New DelhiThe Supreme Court on Friday pulled up Delhi lieutenant governor (LG) VK Saxena for invoking an emergency provision to conduct an election for the sixth member of the standing committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), raising concerns about the LG’s repeated interference in the democratic process and questioning his decision to bypass Delhi mayor Shelly Oberoi in the poll procedure.

The controversial election was held on September 27, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s Sunder Singh securing the last vacant seat of the 18-member panel. (Sanchit Khanna/HT Photo)

“Where do you get the power to interdict it (the election) under Section 487, especially when it is the matter of the election of a member of the standing committee? What was the tearing hurry that you wanted it within two days? What happens to the democratic process if you keep interfering like this?” a bench of justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan asked LG’s lawyer, senior counsel Sanjay Jain.

Issuing a notice on Oberoi’s petition that challenges this election, the court also orally told the LG not to proceed with the election of the chairman of the standing committee until the petition is heard after two weeks.

“Do you propose to hold the election soon? If you hold elections, we are telling you, we will take it seriously,” the bench told Jain.

Section 487 of the DMC Act deals with the powers of the administrator (LG ) in relation to the functioning of MCD. Specifically, it empowers the administrator to intervene in the administration of the corporation in certain situations, including its dissolution or the imposition of certain actions or directions in cases where the administration is not functioning as required under the Act.

The controversial election was held on September 27, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s Sunder Singh securing the last vacant seat of the 18-member panel. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which governs Delhi, and the Congress both boycotted the election. The poll, conducted by additional commissioner Jitendra Yadav — appointed by the LG under Section 487 — effectively shifted control of the standing committee to the BJP, giving it sway over MCD’s financial matters.

The 18-member standing committee of the civic body, which regulates the MCD’s finances, has been a bitter point of contention between the AAP and the BJP since the December 2022 MCD elections. Twelve standing committee members are elected through zonal ward bodies, and six are directly elected by the House of councillors. One seat was vacated when a BJP councillor resigned upon being elected the MP from the West Delhi parliamentary constituency, leading to a heated battle between the BJP (which had nine seats) and AAP (which had eight).

While hearing Oberoi’s petition, the bench signalled its initial scepticism, wondering if the matter was brought to court “out of habit”, but it ultimately recognised that the issues raised were significant.

“We have serious doubts about the way you (LG) exercised the powers under Section 487. This isn’t the way you will use such power...What was the tearing hurry that you wanted election in two days. There are other issues of nomination of the standing committee members. That’s worse...” commented the bench.

At this point, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Oberoi, requested the bench to ensure that the LG does not exhibit the “same tearing hurry” in notifying the election of the chairman of the standing committee. “A notification will create a fresh set of problems. Let them not do that. The court is breaking for a Dussehra break from tomorrow and will reopen only on October 14. They should not do anything to force us to rush to the court during the break,” Singhvi said.

Asked by the bench if there was any such notification underway, Jain said that he was not aware. The bench then issued a verbal caution to the LG’s office against proceeding with the election to the chairman of the standing committee.

Jain, on his part, maintained that the petition was not maintainable and that the correct legal course to challenge the September 27 poll was moving an election petition. He added that Oberoi had breached the sanctity of secret ballot, compelling the LG to use Section 487 of the DMC Act.

The court responded that while the LG is free to raise preliminary issues regarding the maintainability of Oberoi petition, a justification for the exercise of powers under Section 487 is also imperative.

The mayor’s latest contention adds to the growing list of disputes reaching the Supreme Court, where a spate of issues — ranging from the control of bureaucrats to the appointment of members to various bodies in the Capital — continues to be contested between the elected government and the LG.

On October 1, Oberoi moved the Supreme Court to challenge the recent election of the MCD’s sixth member of the standing committee, arguing that the procedure to carry out the process was “unconstitutional” and a “blatant violation of the rights of the elected representatives”.

In the petition filed through advocate Prateek K Chadha, Oberoi contended that the election was “unconstitutional” and violated the DMC Act and related rules.

The mayor said that according to Section 74 of the DMC Act and Regulation 51 of the 1958 Regulations, “a list of business to each member of the Corporation must be given at least 72 hours before any meeting of the House”. However, Oberoi claimed that the rushed election was conducted without adhering to this mandatory requirement.

She added that “most councillors have not even received the notice of the meeting by 10:00 AM on 27.09.2024” and stated that to “expect the councillors to attend the meeting on such short notice is not only a violation of their electoral rights but also vitiates the democratic process”.

Oberoi had earlier directed the MCD commissioner to proceed with the election on October 5. “The issuance of the impugned orders and notices on the eve of the election, without affording adequate time for review or response from the affected parties, underscores the complete disregard for democratic norms,” she said in her plea, which argued that the invocation of Section 487 by the LG in this context was “a clear abuse of power”.

The mayor submitted that the top court should issue appropriate orders to “set aside the elections to the posts of the chairman, deputy chairman and one member to the standing committee from the ward committees held on 04.09.2024” and “set aside the election to the post of the sixth member of the standing committee from the municipal corporation of Delhi held on 27.09.2024”.

The AAP last week described the election process as a “murder of democracy,” accusing LG Saxena of influencing the decision to appoint the IAS officer. On October 1, the BJP said that “AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal has made the election of 18th member controversial by taking it to court and ensuring that MCD remains dysfunctional”. Meanwhile, Delhi Congress president Devender Yadav said the party decided to remain neutral and would “not be part of any horse-trading”.