E-Paper
Setback for AAP as Supreme Court upholds Delhi L-G's power to appoint aldermen to MCD
Supreme Court had previously warned that granting Delhi L-G power to nominate aldermen might destabilise the democratically elected MCD.
The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the Lieutenant Governor's unilateral appointment of ten aldermen to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) without consulting the state cabinet, delivering a setback to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Delhi government.
The judgment was pronounced by justice PS Narasimha, with the bench headed by chief justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and including justice JB Pardiwala.
Justice Narasimha stated that the appointment of aldermen is a “statutory duty” of the LG, who is not bound by the state cabinet’s aid and advice in this matter.
The bench clarified that Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, amended in 1993, empowers the LG to appoint aldermen. This authority, vested in the administrator of Delhi, is neither a “relic of the past” nor an overreach of constitutional power.
On May 17 last year, the court reserved its decision. It had previously warned that granting the L-G power to nominate aldermen might destabilise the democratically elected MCD. The MCD has 250 elected and 10 nominated members.
ALSO READ- What does aldermen mean, why are BJP & AAP fighting over it?
"Is the nomination of specialised people in MCD of that much concern to the Centre? Actually, giving this power to the L-G would effectively mean that he can destabilise the democratically elected Municipal Committees because they (aldermen) will have voting powers also," the top court had said.
In December 2022, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) won the civic elections with claiming 134 wards, defeating the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and ending its 15-year control over the MCD. The BJP won 104 seats, and Congress finished with nine.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued that nominating aldermen should follow the aid and advice of the city government, “a practice upheld for 30 years”.
However, additional solicitor general Sanjay Jain contended that this long-standing practice does not justify its correctness.
Inputs from Utkarsh Anand
