SC: Will only look at MCD panel row
The Supreme Court declined to hear Shelly Oberoi's plea on municipal issues, focusing instead on a petition challenging an MCD election under LG's orders.
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea by former Delhi mayor Shelly Oberoi to allow the Delhi assembly to address urgent issues related to bio-fill sites and waste management in the absence of a functioning standing committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), emphasising that it cannot “micromanage” municipal affairs.
Stating that the court’s focus would only be on Oberoi’s petition challenging the election of the sixth member of the MCD’s standing committee, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra made it clear that the scope of the case is confined to the invocation of Section 487 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act by lieutenant governor (LG) VK Saxena which facilitated the contentious election.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Oberoi, urged the bench to permit the assembly to address pressing municipal concerns in the interim. “Waste management and awarding of contracts for bio-fill sites are urgent issues. I am not saying I will decide, but while the standing committee is not there, let the assembly take a call. It’s in everyone’s interest. It is a constructive suggestion,” Singhvi said.
However, the bench firmly responded: “We can’t micromanage all this. Particularly, we are concerned about the way Section 487 was exercised in this matter. That’s all we are going to see.”
Senior counsel Sanjay Jain, representing LG’s office, also opposed Singhvi’s suggestion and informed the bench that replies had already been filed.
At one point, the bench proposed remitting the matter to the Delhi high court if the two sides agreed but with no consensus emerging, it adjourned the hearing to January 29, 2025, and clarified that the court would focus solely on the invocation of Section 487.
Section 487 of DMC Act deals with the powers of the administrator (LG) in relation to the functioning of MCD. Specifically, it empowers the administrator to intervene in the administration of the corporation in certain situations, including its dissolution or the imposition of certain actions or directions in cases where the administration is not functioning as required under the Act.
Oberoi’s suggestion came as Delhi braces for assembly elections likely to be held in early 2025. The petition by the AAP leader stems from the September 27 election for the sixth member of the MCD standing committee, a body responsible for overseeing the civic body’s finances and major projects. The election was conducted under the LG’s orders, bypassing the mayor’s authority, following his invocation of Section 487. This provision allows the LG to intervene in MCD affairs in cases of administrative breakdown.
The poll was held amid sharp protests from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress, with both parties boycotting it. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) councillor Sunder Singh secured the seat, shifting the balance of power in the 18-member standing committee in favor of the BJP.
At an earlier hearing on October 4, the Supreme Court had raised pointed questions about LG’s decision to invoke Section 487 for an election of this nature. “Where do you get the power to interdict it (the election) under Section 487, especially when it is the matter of the election of a member of the standing committee? What was the tearing hurry that you wanted it within two days? What happens to the democratic process if you keep interfering like this?” the bench asked.
It had also issued a verbal caution to the LG against proceeding with the election of the standing committee’s chairman until Oberoi’s petition challenging the validity of the September 27 election is resolved.
The case highlights the ongoing tussle between the elected Delhi government and the LG over the control of municipal and administrative functions. The AAP has repeatedly accused the LG of undermining the democratic process, with party spokespersons terming the election process a “murder of democracy.” In contrast, the BJP has blamed the AAP for routinely taking the matter to court, accusing it of making MCD dysfunctional.
Recommended Topics