The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over the "tearing hurry" by the Lieutenant Governor's office to exercise executive powers to hold the election for the sixth member of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's Standing Committee.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan told senior advocate Sanjay Jain, appearing for L-G's office, "we will view it seriously if you hold an election for the MCD Standing Committee chairman"
"What happens to democracy if you interfere like this," the bench asked.
The court told the L-G's office not to hold elections for the post of chairman of the Standing Committee till it hears a plea filed by the Mayor Shelly Oberoi against the September 27 Standing Committee polls.
The bench said that initially it was not keen to entertain this petition but it will issue notice because of L-G's decision to exercise his powers under Section 487 of the Delhi Municipal Act.
The bench told the L-G's office counsel that it is not good for democracy, if his client starts using executive powers under Section 487 of the DMC Act.
"How can you interdict the electoral process? What was the tearing hurry in holding the elections in the absence of the MCD Mayor," the bench asked.
Jain, on his part, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition.
He argued that a challenge can be raised only in an election petition.
The bench said it is of the opinion that this is a matter where it will have to issue notice, particularly in view of the manner in which the powers under Section 487 was exercised. "We have serious doubts about the legality and validity of your powers," the bench told the counsel.
The court issued notice to the office of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on the petition filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi challenging the election of the 6th member of the MCD standing committee held on September 27, which was won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The apex court sought a response from the L-G's office in two weeks and fixed the matter for further hearing after the court's Dussehra break.