Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Oct 4: The Supreme Court on Friday slammed the Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena for ordering elections for the standing committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in violation of the norms and stalled the election of the chairman of the standing committee till further orders.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan orally expressed strong reservations about the manner in which the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi issued directions for holding the elections for the 6th member of the Standing Committee which decided the majority in the 18-member standing committee which control all the financial power of the MCD. The bench asked the LG “what was the tearing hurry” in holding the elections in the absence of the MCD Mayor and questioned his resorting to Section 487 of the DMC Act.
“487 is an executive power. It is not to interfere with legislative functions. It’s the election of a member. What happens to democracy if you keep interfering like this?” the Court orally asked.
The bench of also questioned the legal premise behind the Lieutenant Governor ordering an election in apparent violation of the norm. “Nomination issue is also there… Mayor (Shelly Oberoi of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party) is there to preside. Where do you (the LG) get the power?” the court asked. “What happens to democracy if interfere like this? Is there politics in this too?” the judges demanded of the Lieutenant Governor, asking a significant question given the raft of complaints the Supreme Court and various High Courts are hearing against Governors of other states.
Expressing serious doubts about legality and validity of LG’s powers, the bench sought a response from Mr Saxena on a petition filed by Delhi Mayor challenging the election of the BJP’s Sundar Singh Tanwar to the committee. And, responding to a plea by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the AAP, the court also said, “We are telling you… don’t hold election now. Issue notice. List after two weeks.”
Mr Singhvi had said, “Standing committee has members. They can announce election any time!” There was high drama all through last week as the BJP and the AAP went head-to-head over the election for the 18th seat. The BJP won after the AAP boycotted and the Congress abstained. This meant the BJP now controls the Standing Committee, which is seen as the real power behind Delhi Municipal Corporation, and, with 10 of its 18 members can select the Chair.
The AAP does have the numbers in the House – with 125 councillors – but amid concern that some may have been poached by its rival and could flip at the time of voting, leaving an unpleasant surprise to deal with, the party protested the Lieutenant Governor’s rush to vote.
The night before the election was held – with only BJP members present – the AAP rejected a 10 pm call to vote, arguing a) that there was not enough time to summon its councillors and, b) that only the Mayor had the right to summon a municipal body meeting.
“We live in a democracy. It is the law that whenever the House is called, 72 hours will be given… every councillor needs time. There seems to be a conspiracy to do something wrong, that is why they (the BJP) are doing all this…” AAP top leader and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said on X.
Earlier Ms Oberoi had written to the MCD Commissioner, Ashwini Kumar, denouncing the Lieutenant Governor’s election call as “illegal”, but that was overruled by Mr Saxena. The row over this election is the latest in a long line of bitter squabbles between the AAP and Mr Saxena, the centre’s rep in the national capital, with the ruling party accusing him of acting as a proxy to disrupt governance and discredit it ahead of an Assembly election in February 2025.
While posting the matter after two weeks, the bench orally told Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, appearing for LG, that the elections for the Chairperson of the Standing Committee should not be held in the meantime. When Mr Jain raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, saying that a challenge can be raised only in an election petition, the bench said though it was also initially of the view that the Article 32 petition was not maintainable, there are some serious issues which require consideration.
“Our initial view was also why an Article 32 petition. After looking into the matter, we think this is a matter where we have to issue notice, particularly in view of manner in which the powers under Section 487 was exercised. We have serious serious doubts about the legality and validity of your powers,” Justice Narasimha said.
“This is not the way 487 can be used…there are issues…for example, clubbing both these matters was not justified, they are independent from each other. They should have filed independent petitions. The cause of action arose in August 25 and you wait till this time. In spite of some digressions and some amount of politics we can see through…so far as the exercise of 487 is concerned, it is wrong” said Justice Narasimha.