A view of the Supreme Court of India. file | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Lieutenant Governor and the pro tem presiding officer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on a petition filed by the AAP, saying the Constitution does not give the nominated members (aldermen) of a municipality the right to vote in meetings. deliberate accusation Mayor’s election postponed for the third time in a row.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remarked at the preliminary hearing, “There is a huge difference between you (elected members) and them (nominated members).”
A three-judge bench fixed February 13 for a detailed hearing of the matter following a request by senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for AAP mayoral candidate Shelli Oberoi. The case is related to the ‘destruction of democracy’,
Shri Singhvi said that Article 243U of the Constitution states that the election for the formation of municipality should be completed on time.
He said the elections were held on December 4, 2022. But subsequent elections for the offices of mayor, deputy mayor and members of standing committees have stalled three times.
He said that the Presiding Officer pro tem has allowed the nominated members to vote in direct violation of Article 243R(2)(iv) of the Constitution.
At this point Justice PS Narasimha remarked, “It is not just a statute, the Constitution itself does not allow them to vote.”
“Yes, may I say it is a case of res ipsa loquitur and nothing less…” Mr. Singhvi said.
He further said that the presiding officer pro tem himself is “illegal” as he is not the senior-most member.
“Then it orders the simultaneous holding of all the three elections of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the members of the Standing Committees. There is a provision directly that it cannot be done,” submitted Mr. Singhvi.
“Whereas as per Section 76 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957, the Mayor, or in his absence the Deputy Mayor, is to preside over every meeting of the Corporation, as well as the election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and members. Standing Committees Law are in direct contradiction to the provisions of the Act,” the court recorded Mr Singhvi’s contention in its order.
Ms Oberoi had approached the Supreme Court on January 27, requesting speedy and timely conduct of the mayoral elections, as the House was adjourned twice – on January 6 and January 24. allowed to vote.
Soon after the House was adjourned on February 6, senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia had said that the party would seek the intervention of the Supreme Court for the fair conduct of the mayoral elections.
AAP’s chief spokesperson Saurabh Bhardwaj said the party had shared evidence with the apex court of the BJP-led Center trying to “form its government within the MCD through unfair means”.
“We have videos which show how BJP corporators started creating ruckus in the House on Monday while AAP corporators sat quietly. The BJP corporators resorted to hooliganism and raised slogans, following which the House was adjourned. that means the whole plot [to stall the House] The plan was made,” he said on Tuesday.
The results of the MCD elections were declared on 7 December, where the AAP won a majority with 134 wards in the house of 250 wards, followed by the BJP with 104 wards.