LG picking aldermen can destabilise elected MCD: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday remarked that giving powers to the lieutenant governor (LG) to appoint members to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) could “destabilise” the democratically elected local self-government, and wondered why appointing aldermen to a municipal corporation should be an issue of great concern for the Union government.

The top court, which was hearing a petition filed by Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government against LG VK Saxena’s decision to nominate 10 aldermen to MCD, reserved its order in the matter.

The LG had submitted that appointing aldermen is an independent power available to the “administrator” (LG) under the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, and that the aid and advice of Delhi government is not necessary to discharge this duty.

But a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said: “By giving such power to LG, he can destabilise a democratically elected local body such as MCD by bringing people of his choice to the standing committee and ward committees.” The bench, also comprising justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, asked the counsel for L-G: “Why should the nomination of people having special knowledge in municipal administration of a local body be of such great concern to the Union of India?”

The court, while closing the arguments in the case, allowed additional solicitor general (ASG) Sanjay Jain, representing the LG, to file a short note explaining his position by Thursday. The argument made by the LG assumes significance because it suggests that the May 11 Constitution bench decision directing him to act on aid and advice of Delhi government, except on matters of land, public order and police, does not apply to his role under the DMC Act.

The AAP government argued that, if it was so, then all LGs in the past were wrong because no aldermen were appointed without the aid and advice of the government over the past 30 years.

The concerns raised by the bench about destabilising the elected local self-government echoed the arguments put forth by the Delhi government, represented by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and advocate Shadan Farasat.

“This is exactly what he (LG) has done by nominating 10 people in two wards. They will be nominated to the standing committee where they have voting rights. They will even get to vote in ward committees,” Singhvi said. The standing committee is the apex decision making body of MCD. The stand suggests the fight between the elected AAP and the LG, a representative of the Union government that is controlled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), will drag on.

At stake are core functions of the city’s administration, including the upkeep of roads and work on sanitation and waste management — areas where the Capital is still playing catch-up with other global megapolises.

It is imperative that the matter gets resolved quickly so that politics, now that the MCD elections are long over, do not interfere with crucial civic functions.

Following the Constitution bench ruling that directed LG to act on the aid and advice of the Delhi government in matters of state services, the LG on Friday sought time to file a revised affidavit.

The fresh affidavit defended the lieutenant governor’s actions saying the governance of MCD drew its existence from Part IX-A of the Constitution (inserted in 1993), which provides for municipalities, and has nothing to do with Article 239AA of the Constitution and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act, which deals with governance of elected government of Delhi. “MCD is an institution of selfgovernment and the role of the Administrator (L-G) within the meaning of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1956 is not a mirror image of what is provided either under Article 239AA or under the GNCTD Act,” the affidavit filed on Monday said.

When ASG Jain argued that the practice of 30 years, as raised by the Delhi government, will not make any difference because “after Part IX-A was inserted and amendments were made to DMC Act... besides nomination of aldermen, certain other powers were given to LG that were made non-delegable”.

But the bench told Jain: “Even after the amendments were made in 1993, the practice (of appointing aldermen with aid and advice) has continued.”

THE TOP COURT’S REMARKS CAME AGAINST THE LG’S SUBMISSION THAT THE GOVT’S AID IS NOT REQUIRED TO APPOINT THE ALDERMEN