 |
|
The ongoing political battle between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Delhi has escalated with AAP announcing its intention to challenge the BJP's victory in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) standing committee election in the Supreme Court. This move follows AAP's allegations of the election being “illegal and unconstitutional” due to procedural violations and the alleged manipulation of the process by the BJP.
Delhi Chief Minister Atishi, a prominent figure in the AAP, has accused the BJP of “murdering democracy” by allegedly conducting the election in violation of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957. Atishi contends that the DMC Act mandates the mayor to determine the date and location of the standing committee elections and preside over the voting process. However, she claims that the BJP, in collaboration with the Lieutenant Governor, bypassed these rules and conducted the election with an additional commissioner of the MCD presiding instead of the mayor.
Atishi further criticizes the appointment of the additional commissioner as the presiding officer, claiming it undermines the authority of the elected mayor and violates the democratic principles of the election process. She asserts that the Lieutenant Governor and other officials lack the power to convene a meeting of the House for such an election, making the entire procedure illegitimate. She claims that the BJP's actions are driven by a desire to gain control over the MCD, further fueling the political tension between the two parties.
On the other hand, the BJP vehemently denies AAP's allegations, defending the election process as legally sound. Delhi BJP president Virendra Sachdeva refutes Atishi's claims, stating that her remarks are politically motivated and aimed at spreading confusion among the public. He asserts that the DMC Act, under sections 45 and 487, empowers the Lieutenant Governor and the municipal commissioner to convene a meeting of the corporation under specific circumstances, including the appointment of a presiding officer for the meeting.
Sachdeva emphasizes the mandatory nature of forming the standing committee under the DMC Act, justifying the BJP's actions as necessary to fulfill this legal obligation. He also directs criticism at the AAP, questioning their delay in appointing a Dalit mayor to the MCD as mandated by the DMC Act. Sachdeva suggests that AAP's challenge is aimed at diverting attention from their internal divisions and the loss in the standing committee election.
This legal battle over the MCD standing committee election is expected to draw significant attention, as it highlights the ongoing power struggle between the AAP and the BJP in Delhi. The Supreme Court's verdict on this matter will have substantial implications for the political landscape of the city and the future of the MCD.