Article:
The Supreme Court (SC) has been considering the issue of the appointment of Aldermen in Delhi, bringing into focus the wider implications for governance within the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The SC’s observation that granting the Lieutenant-Governor (LG) the authority to nominate MCD members could destabilise the Elected Civic Body has shone a spotlight on the concerns related to this appointment.
Understanding Aldermen
The term “Alderman” comes from a combination of “old” and “man,” indicating an experienced person who holds a position of authority. Originally, this term referred to elders of tribes or clans, and it evolved to be used for king’s viceroys, chief magistrates of a county, and eventually officers of municipal bodies.
Regarding its application in Delhi, the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, provides that ten individuals, over 25, can be nominated to the corporation by the LG. These individuals are assumed to have special knowledge or experience in municipal administration and are supposed to assist the house in making decisions critical for the public.
Appointment Concerns
The concerns over Aldermen appointments include questions over the suitability of the nominated individuals and the perception that the appointment by the LG is an effort to retain control within the MCD, despite electoral defeat. Problems arise when nominees are found to be unfit for the position, leading to queries about the nomination process’s integrity. Furthermore, this appointment risks undermining democratic principles of representation and fairness within the MCD.
The Supreme Court’s Take
The SC has been clear that granting the LG the authority to nominate aldermen could destabilise the democratically elected MCD, as these nominated individuals could exercise voting power. The court has clarified that the LG does not have expansive executive powers in the national capital, which operates under an “Asymmetric Federal Model” of governance. In this model, regions within a federation have varying degrees of autonomy and power.
The court has also specified that the LG can only exercise executive power in three areas – public order, police, and land in Delhi. If there is disagreement with the Council of Ministers, the LG should follow the procedure outlined in the Transaction of Business Rules 1961, derived from Article 77(3) of the Constitution.
The Delhi Government and Centre Tussle
This tussle over administrative powers is rooted in the co-existence of Article 239 and 239AA, leading to jurisdictional conflict between the Government of National Capital Territory (NCT) and the Union Government and its representative, the LG. The central government claims that as Delhi is the national capital, it should have authority over administrative services. In contrast, the Delhi government argues that elected representatives should have the power to decide on matters such as transfers and postings, in keeping with the spirit of Federalism.
Two main legal issues have emerged in this tussle. First, a two-judge Bench in February 2019 left the question of administrative service control to be decided by a larger Bench. Later, a three-judge Bench referred this case to a larger Bench on the Central government’s plea in May 2022. Second, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2021, passed by Parliament, further escalated tensions by stating that the term “government” in any law made by the Delhi Legislative Assembly will refer to the Lieutenant Governor.
