New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up Delhi lieutenant governor (LG) VK Saxena for invoking an emergency provision for the election of the sixth member of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) standing committee, raising concerns about his repeated interference in the democratic process and questioning his decision to bypass mayor Shelly Oberoi in the poll process.
“Where do you get the power to interdict it [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.
The court issued a notice on Oberoi’s petition challenging the election. It orally told the LG not to proceed with the election of the standing committee chairman 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.
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (DMC)’s Section 487 deals with the powers of the administrator (the LG ) about the functioning of the municipal body. 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 per 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 Congress boycotted the election.
Additional commissioner Jitendra Yadav conducted the poll on the LG’s orders under Section 487. The poll effectively shifted control of the standing committee to the BJP, giving it sway over MCD’s financial matters.
The bench initially wondered if the matter was brought to court “out of habit”, but it ultimately recognised that the issues raised in Oberoi’s petition were significant. “We have serious doubts about the way you [LG] exercised the powers under Section 487. This is not the way you will use such power…” It added there are other issues with the nomination of the standing committee members. “That is worse…” said the bench.
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 standing committee chairman. “A notification will create a fresh set of problems. Let them not do that. The court is breaking for Dussehra 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.
The bench asked Jain if there was any such notification underway. Jain said that he was not aware of it, prompting the bench to issue a verbal caution to the LG’s office against proceeding with the election to the standing committee chairman.
Jain maintained the petition was not maintainable and that the correct legal course to challenge the September 27 poll was moving an election petition. He added Oberoi breached the sanctity of the secret ballot, compelling the LG to use Section 487.
The court said while the LG is free to raise preliminary issues regarding the maintainability of Oberoi’s petition, a justification for the exercise of powers under Section 487 is also imperative.
A series of issues—from the control of bureaucrats to the appointment of members to various bodies in the Capital — continue to be contested between the Delhi government and the LG in the Supreme Court.
Oberoi on October 1 moved the court challenging the election of the sixth MCD standing committee member. She argued 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 said that the election was “unconstitutional” and violated the DMC Act and related rules.
Oberoi cited Section 74 of the DMC Act and Regulation 51 of the 1958 Regulations saying a “list of business to each member of the Corporation must be given at least 72 hours before any meeting of the House.” Oberoi said the rushed election was conducted without adhering to this mandatory requirement.
She added that most councillors did not receive the notice of the meeting by 10:00am on September 27. Oberoi said to expect the councillors to attend the meeting on such short notice was not only a violation of their electoral rights but also vitiated the democratic process.
Oberoi said the use of emergency provisions, particularly Section 487, to circumvent the established process for conducting the election was both inappropriate and unlawful. Her petition said Section 487 cannot be used to “usurp the office of the petitioner and replace it with unelected officials.” “The invocation of this provision in this context is a clear abuse of power,” Oberoi said.
She cited violations and urged the court to issue 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.” She also pleaded the election of the sixth standing committee member should be set aside.
Delhi chief minister Atishi on September 30 labelled the election “illegal, unconstitutional, and undemocratic,” questioning the legitimacy of the entire process. She said only the mayor can act as the presiding officer of standing committee elections.
On October 1, the BJP said that AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal made the election controversial by taking it to court and ensuring that MCD remains dysfunctional.
