Uproar at Civic Center on the day of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Mayor elections in New Delhi | Photo Credit: ANI
even if it has been more than two months delhi municipal corporation elections were held (December 4, 2022), the city still does not have a mayor. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) won 134 out of 250 wards and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 104. However, the election of the mayor, which is usually done at the first session of a new council, could not be held on three attempts – on 6 and 24 January and 6 February – as the House was adjourned following a ruckus between BJP and AAP councillors. The reason was that the presiding officer allowed the nominated members to vote in the election of the mayor, deputy mayor and standing committee of the corporation.
The Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi, VK Saxena, nominated 10 members, often called aldermen, to the municipal corporation just before the first session. AAP members have opposed the LG’s decision to give voting rights to these nominated members and demanded that the mayor’s election be conducted under the supervision of the court. In a petition filed by AAP councilor Shaili Oberoi, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Monday orally observed that “nominated members cannot go for election” while the matter was The hearing was set for Friday. , After the hearing of the case by the apex court, now the election of the mayor will take place.
The hue and cry over the mayoral election of Delhi highlights several issues. At one level, this is an example of the increasing attempt by the central government to exercise control over Delhi’s administration. On the other hand, it also raises larger questions about how municipal corporations are controlled by higher levels of government.
The question of whether nominated members or aldermen can vote is a fairly straightforward one. Section 3(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957 provides that 10 people who have “special knowledge or experience in municipal administration” are to be enrolled in the corporation, but the proviso clearly states provided that such designated persons “shall not be entitled to vote at meetings of the Corporation.” In addition, Article 243R(2)(a) of the Constitution, which was introduced by the 74th Amendment, provides that state legislation may include persons with special knowledge on municipal administration to be represented in municipalities. but such persons shall not have the right to vote. ,
In view of such unequivocal constitutional and statutory provisions regarding voting rights of nominated members, the delay in the mayoral elections on this ground is worrisome. The real legal questions that are controversial in this context are whether the LG can nominate members independently, how persons with special knowledge in municipal administration are determined, and whether the choice of LG members can be subject to judicial review. Is. Instead, it is a flagrant disregard of law which must now be reviewed by the apex court.
big picture
The political moves in the municipal corporation are part of the central government’s growing efforts to gain a tighter grip on Delhi’s governance. The most brazen display of such power was the passage of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2021. While created ostensibly to “give effect to the interpretation” of the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision that affirmed primacy. of the elected government in Delhi, in effect the amendment nullifies the decision by “clarifying” that the expression “government” shall mean the Lieutenant Governor.
Editorial | Capital standoff: On the tussle between the Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Delhi
The amendment further provides that on matters specified by the LG, the Council of Ministers must seek the LG’s permission before taking any executive decision and also places restrictions on the inherent rule-making powers of the Legislative Assembly.
After bypassing the Legislative Assembly and the Council of Ministers of Delhi, it is now the municipal administration that the Union wants to control. In April 2022, Parliament amended the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to merge the North, South and East Delhi municipal corporations into a single corporation, effectively undoing the bifurcation of the municipal corporation done in 2011. The amendment passed by the Delhi Legislative Assembly, the integration was initiated by the Union Government and passed by Parliament by reducing the Legislative Assembly. Although local governments are a state subject under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the Central Government exercised its absolute powers under Article 239AA of the Constitution to pass this law. Now efforts are being made to control the Integrated Municipal Corporation by creating a majority through nominated members.
The impasse in municipal governance in Delhi also raises larger questions about who has the authority to decide how the city is governed. The issue is not just the central government trying to control the municipal and state governments in Delhi, but the higher level government exercising authority over the lower levels. In fact, it is the state government that exercises strict control over municipal governments across India. Thirty years after the passage of the 73rd and 74th Amendments, which sought to make panchayats and municipalities act as “institutions of self-government”, local governments function as administrative vessels of the state government, not As an independent level of government.
a fall
The Union and State Governments throttle the authority of the Municipal Governments in many ways. While the 74th Amendment envisaged states to hand over a set of 18 functions to municipal governments, many of these functions are being performed by state government-controlled parastate agencies such as development authorities. The executive powers of a municipality are often vested with commissioners appointed by the state government, giving the mayor a ceremonial role. Most importantly, municipalities are given very little revenue-generating powers, making them dependent on grants and loans from state and central governments. More recently, national-level urban programs such as the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and the Smart Cities Mission have given the central government a greater role in driving urban development and governance.
As local governments weaken amid an overall centralizing trend in Indian politics, there is a need for more dialogue about what authority should be exercised at each level of government. While local autonomy is important, higher levels of government can also have a legitimate role in local issues – for example, to ensure regional coordination, reduce spatial inequality, or manage economic and environmental externalities. However, the reasons why central or state governments intervene in local governance are often not due to such obvious motives, but rather driven by a desire to accumulate political and economic power or for short-term electoral gains. While it is important to acknowledge and understand the actual political considerations that govern municipal powers, we should also not neglect the fundamental values of local democracy that underpin municipal authority.
Mathew Idicula is a legal advisor based in Bengaluru and visiting faculty at Azim Premji University