The Constitution does not allow nominated members of a municipality, the right to vote in meetings- Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issuing notice to the Lieutenant Governor and protem presiding officer of the municipal corporation of Delhi in a petition filed by AAP alleging deliberate stalling of mayorol election for the third time in a row.


Justice of India D.Y Chandrachur remarked in a parliaminary hearing.

The difference between very substantial elected members and nominated members.

The detailed hearing of the case kept on 13 February under the three judges bench of Supreme Court after senior advocate A.M Singhvi appearing for AAP mayoral candidate Shelly Oberoi urged that the case concerned “destruction of democracy”.


artical 243u of the Constitution mandates that election to constitute a municipality should be completed in time Mr. Singhvi said.


Advocate Singhvi said the election were held on December 4 2022 but poles for the office of Mayor, deputy mayor and members of the standing committee have been stalled thrice.


He said again the protem presiding officer has allowed nominated members to vote in direct violation of article 243 R (2) (IV) of the constitution.


Justice P.S Narasimha remarked at the point and said it is not just stay statute the constitution itself does not allow them to vote.


He further said the portem presiding officer is herself illegal as she is not the senior most member.


Mrs. Oberoi had moved the Supreme Court on January 27 pleading for Swift and timely conduct of the mayoral polls after the house was stalled twice, January 6 and 24. She later withdrew while seeking permission to move the court again in case the elderman were allowed to vote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *