The judgment also directed that the notice convening the first meeting of the MCD be issued within 24 hours of the court’s orders.
—
IN a big boost to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the Supreme Court on Friday held that the councillors nominated by the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi are not entitled to vote in the election of the mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
It also held that the mayor so elected would act as the presiding authority for conducting the election of the deputy mayor and the 18 members of the ‘standing committee’, which is the main decision-making body of the MCD. At these elections, too, the prohibition on the exercise of the vote by the nominated councillors would continue to operate.
It directed that the notice convening the first meeting of the MCD should be issued within a period of twenty-four hours of the court’s judgment.
“The notice shall fix the date for convening the first meeting at which the election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and members of the Standing Committee shall be conducted in terms of the above directions“, the Supreme Court ordered.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala was ruling on a petition filed by Shelly Oberoi, who is a prospective candidate for the post of mayor from AAP.
The elections for 250 councillors were held in December last year, but the election of the mayor has not been held till now. AAP won 134 of 250 wards, while the Bharatiya Janata Party got 104 seats, and the Indian National Congress came a distant third with just nine, in the civic elections.
The first issue before the bench was whether the aldermen, as nominated councillors are popularly described, who are nominated by the MCD administrator (that is, the Lt. Governor) under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 have the right to vote at the first meeting of the corporation, where the mayor would be elected.
The second issue pertained to the order for holding elections; more specifically, whether, as the petitioners assert, the election to the office of the mayor should be held first, followed by the elections for the office of the deputy mayor and other members of the standing committee, on which meetings the mayor would preside.
In terms of Article 243R(2)(a)(i) of the Constitution, section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act provides for the representation in the municipality of persons who have special knowledge or experience in municipal administration. These persons are nominated by the administrator. However, in terms of the proviso to Article 243R(2)(a) of the Constitution, a similar restriction is introduced in the proviso to section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Act, by which the nominated members do not have a right to vote in the meetings of the municipal corporation.
The bench rejected the argument of the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the Lt. Governor, and the Additional Solicitor General of India, Sanjay Jain, representing the MCD, that the restriction on the right to vote in terms of Article 243R(2) and section 3(3)(b)(i) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act applied only to the regular meetings of the corporation in which the business of the MCD is transacted, and would not extend to the first meeting after the elections are held.
The bench held that the Constitution has imposed a restriction in terms of which nominated members who are brought in on account of their special knowledge or experience in municipal administration do not have the right to vote.
Also read: Supreme Court refers Delhi-Centre row over control of services to five-judge bench
“The Constitution and the Act place value on their experience but the right to vote is not granted to them at meetings of the Corporation. The meetings of the Corporation would include all meetings, including the first meeting which is held after the holding of the general election“, the bench held.
The bench added that Section 73 of the Act provides for the first meeting to be convened by the administrator as early as possible after the publication of the results, while Section 35 provides for the election of the mayor and deputy mayor at the first meeting of the corporation. The prohibition on nominated members exercising the right to vote in terms of section 3(3)(b)(i) shall, therefore, also apply to the first meeting of the corporation at which the mayor and, thereafter, the deputy mayor are to be elected.
The bench also highlighted that Regulation 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1958 stipulates that as soon as the mayor is elected, “he shall preside over the meeting for the transaction of the rest of the business thereof”. Regulation 8 provides for the election of the deputy mayor and stipulates that the provisions of Regulation 6 shall apply, as far as may be, to the election of the deputy mayor, subject to the modification that any reference to the presiding authority shall be construed as a reference to the mayor.
These provisions, the bench held, made it abundantly clear that the election of the mayor has to be held first.
“The elected Mayor is then required to preside over the election of the Deputy Mayor as the presiding authority. Consequently, with this clarification, it must be noted that the election of the Mayor shall be conducted first in the first meeting of the [MCD]. Once the Mayor is elected, the elected Mayor shall be the presiding authority for the purpose of the election of the Deputy Mayor“, the bench noted.
Click here to view the Supreme Court’s full judgment.
