The Supreme Court on Friday held that nominated members of the municipal corporation cannot vote in the mayor’s election, putting an end to a major controversy surrounding the election of the mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
A bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala was hearing a petition filed by the AAP’s mayoral candidate, Shelly Oberoi, seeking early conduct of the election.
The court held that persons nominated by the administrator do not have the right to vote under Article 243R of the Constitution and Section 3(3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
“The prohibition on nominated members exercising the right to vote in terms of S 3(3)(b)(1) shall apply to the first meeting where the mayor and the deputy mayor are to be elected”, the bench ordered.
The Court further ruled that nominated members are ineligible to vote in standing committee and deputy mayor elections. Moreover, the election of the Mayor must take place before that of the Deputy Mayor.
Although the MCD elections were held in December 2022, the mayoral elections were postponed due to a disagreement between the AAP and the BJP over the voting rights of nominated members.
Regarding the decision of the apex court, chief minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, called it a “victory of democracy” in a tweet shortly after it was issued.
“Many thanks to the Supreme Court. Delhi will now get a mayor after two-and-a-half months,” he said, declaring, “It has now been proved how LG and the BJP together are passing illegal and unconstitutional orders in Delhi.”
Three attempts to elect a new mayor have failed in the last two months, each leaving the House in chaos and disarray as lawmakers from the AAP and the Bharatiya Janata Party fought over granting aldermen voting rights.
The AAP won 134 of the 250 wards in December, breaking the BJP’s 15-year stranglehold on the Delhi municipal corporation.
The AAP claimed that the aldermen, ten of them, would have increased the BJP’s vote total, and that holding elections for mayor, deputy mayor, and members of the standing committee at the same time, as ordered by the presiding officer, was against the rules.
