'What Happens To Democracy If You Interfere Like This?': Supreme Court Questions Delhi LG In MCD Standing Committee Election Matter

The Supreme Court on October 4(Friday) orally expressed 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 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

The Court asked "what was the tearing hurry" in holding the elections in the absence of the MCD Mayor and questioned the resort to Section 487 of the DMC Act by the LG.

"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.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan issued notice to the office of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on the petition filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi challenging the election of the 6th member of the MCD standing committee held on September 27, which was won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

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.

Serious doubts about legality and validity of LG's powers, the bench says during the hearing

At the outset, Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, for the Delhi LG, 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 that 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 a 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.

Jain then asserted that the Mayor has contravened Section 128 of the Representation of People Act. The bench expressed that it has some reservations about the Mayor's conduct as well, but that does not take away from the need to scrutinize the LG's actions.

"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.

What is the tearing hurry in holding elections?

Justice Narasimha further expressed :

"What is the tearing hurry (in holding the elections)? What is the hurry?... What is the tearing hurry...and then, there are other issues also with respect to the nomination part of it...much worse...the Mayor is to preside the meeting...Where do you (LG) get the power to interdict all this under Section 487? [Section] 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?"

Jain submitted that the Mayor herself postponed the election to October 5 and thereby violated the Court's direction passed on August 5 to fill the vacancy within a month. He added that the elected member has also not been made a party in the petition. In response, Justice Narasimha told Jain that all objections are open to be raised.

When Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the petitioner-Mayor, requested the bench to pass an order to halt the election of the Chairperson of the Standing Committee, Justice Narasimha orally said to Jain, "We are just telling you, don't hold the elections".

Arguments in the petition

The Delhi Mayor filed the petition claiming that the Standing Committee election was held on the basis of the directions of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) and the Municipal Commissioner, an IAS officer, convened the meeting.

As per her, this was illegal as only the Mayor of the MCD can decide the date, time and venue for the corporation meeting where the Standing Committee election takes place.

Reference was made to Regulation 51 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Procedure and Conduct of Business Regulations 1958 to state that the election for the Standing Committee must take place in a corporation meeting presided over by the Mayor. Further, Regulation 3 (2) specifies that the date, time, and venue for such meetings can only be decided by the Mayor. It is stated that Section 76 of the DMC Act specifies that the presiding officer for these meetings must be the Mayor or in her absence, the Deputy Mayor.

However, instead of an elected Mayor, an IAS Officer was made the Presiding Officer of the meeting, which, the petitioner contends, is grossly illegal and unconstitutional.

The vacancy of the 6th Member arose due to the election of BJP's Kamaljeet Sehrawat to the Lok Sabha.

Earlier this week, the contempt petition filed by a BJP councilor against the Mayor for delaying the MCD standing committee member election was withdrawn from the Supreme Court.

Case Title: SHELLY OBEROI Versus OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 649/2024