New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday observed that the lieutenant governor (L-G) being given the power to nominate 10 aldermen can “effectively destabilise” the democratically-elected Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) since “they will have voting powers also”.
The oral observation was made by the SC while reserving its judgment on the Delhi government’s plea challenging the L-G’s power to nominate members to the civic body.
The AAP-led Delhi government had challenged the notifications issued in January, which specified that the L-G had nominated 10 aldermen, saying that the state government had been “bypassed” in the nomination process.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Delhi is apprehensive that the selection of the aldermen by the L-G will give the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) larger control over the MCD.
Last year, AAP had wrested control of the MCD from the BJP. Presently, the AAP enjoys a majority in the MCD’s House with 134 seats, in addition to having a mayor from the party. The BJP holds 104 seats.
However, the BJP is looking to secure a majority in the MCD’s standing committee, the possibility of which has been boosted by the aldermen nominated by the L-G, said a former BJP Mayor.
Also Read: Decoding SC ruling on Delhi ‘services’ — what Kejriwal govt has power over now & what stays with L-G
What importance do currently-nominated aldermen hold for BJP & how does it affect AAP?
The MCD’s standing committee consists of 18 members, of which six are elected in the first meeting of the House. The remaining members are elected from each of the 12 administrative zones under the civic body. Each zone comprises a cluster of municipal wards that fall under its jurisdiction, and has a zonal ward committee.
Excluding the aldermen, the AAP has a majority in seven zones, while the BJP has a majority in four. However, the 10 aldermen, according to the AAP, have been nominated and placed in certain zones where the BJP’s numbers were falling short and have subsequently resulted in the latter gaining a majority in more zones.
At the MCD, an alderman — who must be at least 25 years of age — is required to have special knowledge or experience in municipal administration.
While the aldermen cannot vote in meetings of the House, they can vote in the meetings of the ward committee – from where the remaining 12 standing committee members are elected – and can also contest to be a member of the standing committee. However, they cannot contest for the chairperson’s post in either committee, but can for deputy chairperson’s post.
Barring the restrictions in connection with voting rights, an alderman’s role is similar to that of a councillor. “They can (aldermen) even get the funds that a councillor gets for area development purposes,” said Anil Gupta, former law officer at the erstwhile North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
These voting rights given to aldermen in zonal ward committee meetings were result of a 2015 judgment by the Delhi High Court on a plea filed by former Congress councillor and alderman Onika Mehrotra.
According to the former BJP mayor quoted above, the party’s prospects of securing a majority in the standing committee solely depends on the 10 aldermen. “Without them, our numbers will be far from sufficient,” he said.
The Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act states that the L-G has to nominate 10 persons (aldermen) — who have special experience or knowledge in municipal administration — to the civic body. However, the Act does not specify or limit the number of aldermen that can be nominated to each zone.
Why is the standing committee important?
The MCD’s standing committee is yet to be constituted, which has left the civic body’s financial matters in limbo.
Proposals above Rs 5 crore require the approval of the key panel and, in the current scenario, this has affected tenders and contract renewals for large-scale projects, including the yearly extension of contractual employees, all of which cross the ceiling of Rs 5 crore.
Anil Gupta explained that there is no legal mechanism to help deal with the absence of the standing committee. He also added that an Opposition party having control over the standing committee — while the ruling party has a majority in the House — will result in “recurring chaos” over proposals.
“In this scenario, for instance, proposals passed in the standing committee may not be passed in the House. And this will cause a lot of back and forth. There will be more chaos if there is a different party leading the standing committee,” said Gupta.
On 24 February, the elections of the six members to the standing committee had led to clashes at the MCD House between AAP and BJP councillors after Mayor Shelly Oberoi had called for fresh polling without declaring the result, stating that one vote was invalid.
The Delhi High Court, while hearing the two pleas filed by BJP councillors Kamaljeet Sehrawat and Shikha Rai, had stayed the “re-election”. The councillors had contended that the election process was completed successfully and that both parties — AAP and BJP — had won three seats each.
Currently, the High Court has reserved its orders in connection with the matter.
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhari)
Also Read: HC’s ruling on ‘services’ — how it’s different from pending L-G vs Delhi govt case in SC