The Capital’s elected municipal council members failed for the third time to elect a mayor for the city on Monday after a series of controversial decisions by the presiding officer, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member, triggered outrage from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which has the majority in the House.
While things did not come to a chaotic pass as they had exactly a month ago – the first Municipal Corporation Delhi (MCD) House meeting on January 6 descended into a brawl among members – the developments on Monday saw allegations and counter-allegations of poaching and violations of constitutional norms.
At the heart of Monday’s controversy was the decision by the presiding officer, Satya Sharma, to allow nominated members, known as aldermen, to vote in the election for the mayor. Such members have not voted in the mayor or deputy mayor elections in the past and the law — the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act — prohibits their participation.
“Allowing nominated councillors to vote is illegal and unconstitutional. This is open hooliganism. We will take the matter to the Supreme Court and we are hopeful that the apex court will protect the Constitution and laws made as per the Constitution,” said Delhi’s deputy chief minister and AAP leader Manish Sisodia, adding that the BJP’s strategy was to hold up the election process so that the civic body could be run “illegally through bureaucrats”.
Two other decisions by Sharma were protested by AAP: She ordered that the elections for the posts of mayor, deputy mayor and the six standing committee members will be held simultaneously, and directed two AAP MLAs to leave the chambers because they were ostensibly ineligible to vote due to their convictions in legal cases.
Sharma told HT that all her decisions were either in accordance with the high court orders and the Constitution, or were the prerogative of a presiding officer. “We will accept whatever directions issues by the court on all these three issues,” Sharma said.
The impasse, now stretching to well over 10 months when the first plan to holds elections to what were three separate civic bodies was scrapped, the agency reunified, and elections held, means that one of the Capital’s most important citizen-service providers is without coherent policymaking. MCD is the first port of call for the Delhi’s 20 million people for critical services such as death and birth certification, sanitation and waste collection, and road works, among many other functions.
BJP working president Virender Sachdeva said the AAP is facing rebellion from within their party and the blame lay with it for the delay in the election of the mayor. “AAP has divisions within itself and the party leadership does not have trust on its own members. AAP is responsible for delay in the mayoral election,” he added.
Delhi BJP spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor said it was regrettable that the AAP violated the directives of the presiding officer. “If the AAP goes to court, it will have to say why its councillors repeatedly violated instructions of the presiding officer. If the AAP moves court, then it should give a commitment to abide by court’s decision,” Kapoor said.
Earlier on Monday, both the BJP and the AAP held press conferences accusing each other of attempting to poach their councillors.
BJP’s working president Virender Sachdeva alleged AAP leaders contacted nine of its councillors to switch their affiliations for ₹1 crore, while AAP MLA and MCD in-charge Durgesh Pathak argued it was the BJP that was trying to poach members from its rivals.
“BJP is not allowing the mayor elections to be held through ruckus and hooliganism. The same script is being repeated,” Pathak said.
House proceedings, which were expected to be initiated at 11am, were postponed by 30 minutes.
Unlike the previous two meetings — the last one on January 24 lasted four hours and the one before that two-and-a-half hours — the overall process lasted less than 45 minutes and witnessed two adjournments.
When Sharma issued directions for the election ballot papers to be distributed to all 250 elected members, 10 aldermen and the nominated MLAs and MPs for mayor and deputy mayor, AAP MLA from Rithala Mohinder Goyal objected.
AAP councillor and leader of AAP’s councillor group Mukesh Goel tabled high court orders on the matter opposing the participation of aldermen in the elections. “The nominated aldermen can only vote in the zonal wards committee and not in the house meeting and we are presenting these court orders in the matter,” Goel argued, but his objections were overruled.
It was at the time when the House was briefly adjourned, as BJP councillors started sloganeering.
The resumption of proceedings around noon saw the BJP councillor from Greater Kailash demanding that AAP MLAs who have been convicted in cases should not be allowed to vote – Sharma accepted it, prompting protests.
Stating that the House was not in order for the elections, she adjourned the meeting till the next date.
A senior MCD official said special officer (SO) Ashwini Kumar, appointed by the Union government for the period till which mayors and standing committee members are yet to be appointed, will continue to hold powers of the deliberative wing, and it is likely that the Budget for 2023-24 will have to be cleared by the officer. “The statutory deadline for publishing the schedule of taxes is February 15. The window is now becoming impractically smaller. The SO will need to take a call on the matter,” official added, asking not to be named.
The corporation’s deliberative wing comprises of 250 elected members, 14 MLAs nominated by Delhi assembly, 10 MPs and 10 aldermen nominated the administrator (LG). Over the last month, AAP has objected to the appointment of a BJP councillor as the presiding officer as well the nomination of 10 BJP members as aldermen by the LG office.
Anil Gupta, former (retired) chief law officer of MCD, said that the house proceedings on Monday are a clear case of foul play. “Aldermen ruling is illegal as per the DMC act. They do not have rights to vote in the house as per the Section 3 of the DMC act. Onika Malhotra, a former Congress leader and alderman had filed a case in the Delhi high Court and on April 27, 2015, the court issued a judgement giving these aldermen the right to vote in the zonal ward committee election. The court also explained their powers and positions that they can hold. There is no precedent to allow them to vote in elections,” Gupta said.
He added that the procedure and conduct of business regulations 1958 clearly mention that the presiding officer holds power only till mayor is elected. “The subsequent elections of deputy mayor and standing committee are conducted by the new mayor. It is clearly laid down on the rules,” he added.
Constitutional expert and former secretary to Lok Sabha and Delhi assembly, SK Sharma, said that the pro-tem speaker or the presiding officer has only two roles in the form of administering oath to the members and conduct election for a new speaker or mayor. “The moment a mayor is elected this institution is defunct. As far as I am aware, the elected councillors, MLAs and MPs vote in these election and aldermen are not allowed to vote,” he said.
Sharma, however, added that the presiding officer is the master of proceedings and capable of taking the decisions about its conduct. “Right or wrong, she has to take the decisions which can be later challenged in the court. This has become a political fight and shadow boxing,” he added.