The LG defended its power to nominate aldermen in the MCD. Told SC, ‘Not subject to Delhi government’s advice’

New Delhi: The role of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) as an administrator under the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act is not a “mirror image” of that provided under the Act. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD Act), or Article 239AA of the Constitution, the Supreme Court was told Tuesday

Defending his decision to nominate 10 aldermen to the Municipal Corporation of DelhiIn an affidavit submitted to a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the LG’s office claimed that the entire scope of local self-governance by a municipal corporation is discussed in various provisions of Article 243. of the constitution.

This independent mechanism of self-governance is “separate and distinct” from the framework of the GNCTD Act, stated in the affidavit.

The lieutenant governor’s affidavit was in response to a petition by the AAP-led Delhi government seeking quashing of the earlier notification dated January 3 and 4, 2023, to nominate aldermen.

affidavit, placed before the apex court by Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the LG, submitted that there is no concept of ‘aid and advice’ under the DMC Act and it is relevant only in the context of Article 239AA. The governance of Delhi is not a factor in the governance of municipal corporations under Article 239AA.

According to the affidavit, As far as the MCD is concerned, it has a multi-layered source of powers to exercise, such as the LG, the Delhi government, the central government and commissioners appointed under the DMC Act.

Therefore, the jurisdiction of the elected government of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor has been specifically delineated under the DMC Act, Said this.

The discretionary power of the Administrator or LG is independent under the DMC Act, without interference from other sources of authority. This also includes the power to nominate aldermen, which the MCD Act recognizes as a special discretionary power conferred on the LG, the affidavit claimed.

After hearing Jain and Delhi government’s counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the SC bench adjourned the matter till Wednesday. The judges said they would read the LG’s reply and then continue with the hearing.


Read also: Digitizing over 3,000 crore records, taking forward online hearings – Modi government’s plan for e-courts Phase III


Delhi Govt Vs LG

As per the Delhi Government’s plea, the Lieutenant Governor can appoint nominated members to the MCD only with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, which was not done in the present case.

However, the LG’s response states that under the DMC Act, there is no provision requiring the Administrator to act or seek the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Delhi while nominating the Administrator.

The LG, as an administrator in the DMC Act, is a source of authority for the MCD, separate from the central government or the Delhi government, stated in the affidavit.

To buttress the contention, the LG’s affidavit gives a brief background on the inclusion of Part IXA of the Constitution which empowered urban local bodies and municipalities as units of “self-governance” to exercise their own independent powers for aspects of governance. Paved the way to make it in the form of a system. , including composition, taxation, auditing and finance.

Both the GNCTD and DMC Acts are Parliamentary legislation and being mutually exclusive and not overlapping, need to be interpreted within the scope of their respective statutory frameworks, stated in the affidavit.

Although both – the Legislative Assembly and the Council – are elected bodies, they are governed by a different hierarchy of exercise of power, This couple.

Meanwhile, the LG also questioned the maintainability of the petition under Article 32.

He said the AAP government’s plea “gives a go-bye to the principles of constitutional jurisdiction laid down by this court, which lays down that Article 32 can be invoked only in cases which are part of the Constitution”. – deals with the enforcement of III (Fundamental Rights) and no other rights.

The affidavit states that the petition does not indicate infringement of any fundamental right.

(Editing by Richa Mishra)


Read also: Union ministry with 2.85 lakh pending cases biggest litigant in government, finance top list