New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Tuesday set aside Delhi mayor and Aam Aadmi Party councillor Shelly Oberoi’s call for fresh polls to elect six members to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s (MCD) standing committee, and ordered Oberoi to instead declare the results of the elections that were held on 24 February.
The standing committee consists of 18 members, six of whom are elected at the MCD’s first house meeting. The remaining are elected one each from the MCD’s 12 administrative zones.
Senior MCD officials told ThePrint that in the 24 February elections, three seats each were won by the AAP and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The officials added that the court’s order had solved only “one-half” of the problem facing the MCD. “The next step would be to call for a house meeting to declare the results,” one of the senior officials said.
The official added that the remaining members of the standing committee – one each from the 12 administrative zones under the MCD – are yet to be elected. The formation of the standing committee will require all 18 members to be elected, who will then go on to elect a chairperson and deputy chairperson.
“The mayor has to give her approval to initiate the process for the zonal ward committee elections, and this has not happened since the SC ruling on the nomination of 10 aldermen is yet to be announced,” a second senior MCD official told ThePrint.
The nomination of the 10 aldermen by the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) has been contested by AAP in the Supreme Court, alleging that the L-G had bypassed the elected government in the process. The apex court has reserved its judgment on the matter.
An alderman can vote in the said elections, can contest to become a member of the standing committee, but cannot contest for the chairperson’s post. While aldermen do not have voting rights in house meetings, they can vote in meetings of the zonal ward committees. The SC ruling on the nomination of aldermen may, therefore, affect the position of either party in the standing committee.
Violent clashes had reportedly broken out between AAP and BJP councillors following the 24 February elections for the standing committee members, fuelled by Oberoi’s call for fresh polling while declaring one vote invalid.
On 25 February, the high court stayed the mayor’s call for re-polling, while hearing two pleas filed by BJP councillors Kamaljeet Sehrawat and Shikha Rai, who contended that the election process had been completed successfully and that the call for re-polling was wrong. The two councillors had also said that the BJP and AAP had won three seats each in the standing committee.
In its order Tuesday, the Delhi High Court found the actions of the mayor, who was also the Returning Officer (RO) for the 24 February polls, as engaging in “re-scrutiny of ballots” when the state of scrutiny had passed beyond the powers vested with her. The call for the re-poll was made at the stage of counting of votes, which the HC held to be “bad in law”.
Oberoi tweeted later that she accepts the high court’s decision on the matter, while adding that AAP is “committed towards working together to ensure a cleaner and safer Delhi for all”.
In the MCD elections held last year, AAP had won in 134 of 250 wards, while the BJP had won in 104. However, two Independent councillors and one AAP councillor have since joined the BJP.
With the standing committee yet to be constituted, financial matters – such as proposals crossing the ceiling of Rs 5 crore – remain stuck. Senior MCD officials have noted that there is no legal mechanism to bypass the committee’s approval.
Day-to-day matters, however, continue to remain unaffected since the MCD commissioner has the power to clear financial proposals costing up to Rs 5 crore.
Also read: Days after Modi govt ordinance, Delhi minister calls order to reinstate IAS officer ‘illegal’
What constitutes standing committee
Each zone of the MCD comprises a cluster of wards which are under its jurisdiction. There is no fixed number.
The zones also have a zonal ward committee, with the mayor appointing the presiding officer for elections to these.
The second senior MCD official quoted above said that the process of constituting the zonal ward committees is yet to take off. He added, “It will have to wait now since the Supreme Court judgment on the 10 aldermen nominated by the L-G is yet to come”.
AAP leaders have alleged that the aldermen have been nominated to specific zones where the BJP’s numbers were falling short, and that it affects the majority of the party elected to power at the MCD.
Delhi BJP leaders, including former mayors, told ThePrint that the party’s prospects of securing a majority in the standing committee solely depends on the (SC ruling on) aldermen.
What the HC order says
Writing the judgment, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said, “…the decision of the Mayor/RO was not to further the election but the same is affecting, interrupting, obstructing and protracting the election process.”
The HC rejected the mayor’s contention that the petition was not maintainable. It observed that as per the rules under which the polls to elect members of the standing committee are conducted, a vote cannot be declared invalid once the scrutiny is over. The scrutiny, it added, contemplates separation of ballot papers as valid from the one that are invalid.
“Once the stage of scrutiny is over, valid and invalid ballot papers are segregated, then the re-scrutinising of those ballot papers cannot be deemed permissible under law,” noted the judgment.
On perusal of the official minutes of the meeting, the court said the poll was over without any disturbance, the scrutiny was also conducted and none of the ballot paper was declared invalid. All the 242 ballot papers were found to be valid.
The quota of votes to be acquired by a candidate was ascertained and then the counting took place. It was only after the final result sheet was presented before the mayor that an objection was raised by an AAP member regarding one ballot paper.
The court also took into account that the municipal secretary opposed the mayor’s direction for a recount of votes. This, the court said, clearly showed that the counting was already over. Also, the mayor went against an advice of the technical committee member by issuing the said direction, the court said.
Even on merits, the court said that the mayor’s action of rejecting the ballot was impermissible by law. It held the mayor was not right in declaring the vote invalid on the ground that the voter had expressed preference number 2 to two candidates, while giving first preference to the BJP candidate. The bench said that since first preference was expressly conveyed in the ballot paper by said voter, it is valid in law.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)
Also read: ‘Good chance to defeat BJP’ — Mamata stands behind Kejriwal in fight against Modi govt ordinance