Recently, it is the Supreme Court of India that has been critical of the role played by Delhi’s LG VK Saxena. His actions relating to the MCD elections had recently been indicted severely by the Supreme Court of India. After all, it raises an important issue regarding the overlapping involvement of this LG with a democratic process. Now this has repercussions on both legal as well as political fronts.
Brief Background of the Controversy
On 27th September, the MCD witnessed a controversial election where the position of the sixth member in the standing committee of the corporation was up for grabs. The members sought to fill this all-important body in the corporation. Sunder Singh from the Bharatiya Janata Party emerged as the winner at this position. However, when it came to validating the legitimacy of this election, it faltered by some margins.
The election was apparently conducted in such an emergency that a provision had to be invoked under the Constitution to facilitate this election. It was a strange move among lawyers and political analysts. The question was whether it really needed to be done in such haste within a democratic system of governance.
Criticism from the Supreme Court
The bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan sitting on the case expressed sharp disapproval at the hearing. They questioned the LG’s power by referring to Section 487 of the relevant law. Specifically, they asked, “Where do you get the power to interdict it (the election)?” This query brings into play fears about the excessive scope of the LG’s power and its potential abuse.
This could, in turn, bring another implication of such interference. The bench questioned, “What happens to the democratic process if you keep interfering like this?” That points toward the very essence of democracy: that elections have to be fair and free from undue influence.
Immediate Consequences of the Hearing
After the Supreme Court scrutinized it, the court issued a notice on Oberoi’s petition. Oberoi is the mayor of Delhi. She had challenged the validity of the election. She argued that the LG bypassed her authorities in the election process. The court asked the LG not to go ahead with the election of chairman of the standing committee without heaving her petition till two weeks.
This decision clearly sends out a message. It reminds people that democratic institutions must, in fact follow proper procedure. Toward this end, the Supreme Court strained itself to keep the electoral process above-board and legitimate.
Political Significance
Indeed, the New Delhi government versus the Lieutenant Governor ever-warring struggle does show the very fundamental political divide. Or, people might well view the LG as overstepping his constitutional mandate. Probably because of the inherent nature of its role, the LG does often fight over governance matters in Delhi.
According to the observations of political analysts, such interference directly goes against the elected government. In fact, they opine that elected representatives should not be pressurized in any way, and they must be allowed to function on their own. Their freedom is crucial for the sustenance of public trust in democratic systems.
Future of MCD Elections
As the Supreme Court is likely to take up the petition, the fate of MCD elections continues to hover in the balance. The LG’s move will set a trend for the conduct of future elections. The question, thus posed is whether Delhi’s urban local governance will be able to retain its integrity.
If the court is not going to let it intervene, the LG interference would end up empowering an elected government. But if the court permits LG interference in the local election process, that will only serve as an encouragement for LG interference into local elections in the future also. The stakes are very high for the players.
Public Reaction
Public opinion on the matter is still divided fifty-fifty. Most citizens express wariness at the erosion of democratic principles. They are concerned that something like this could set a dangerous precedent. Advocates for the LG argue that massive oversight is necessary for proper governance.
These opinions are quite strongly aired on social media. Activists and politicians fight heated debates about the consequences which their actions have caused in light of the duties performed by the LG. This public discourse also represents a call for transparency and accountability in governance.
Follow us- https://viralenews.com/
