Delhi MCD: Chaos During Elections Raises Questions On Conduct Of Newly Elected Mayor

The election of six members to the standing committee of the MCD was marred by chaotic scenes, as councillors sparred, and threw bottles, leading to a complete breakdown of the decorum in the House.

The standing committee is a crucial body responsible for running the daily operations of the municipality and making important financial and administrative decisions. The party that controls the body, effectively runs the MCD.

Following the smooth elections of the mayor and deputy mayor, newly elected Mayor Shelly Oberoi presided over the standing committee elections.

The House reconvened at 6 pm to begin the elections. The MCD elections to the mayor, deputy mayor and standing committee members are not subject to the anti-defection law. The councillors can vote for any candidate of their choice.

The BJP alleged that AAP suspected its councillors to indulge in cross-voting in the standing committee elections, prompting them to delay the process. The AAP became especially alarmed after instances of cross-voting were seen in the elections of the mayor and deputy mayor.

At the start of the elections, Mayor Shelly Oberoi allowed mobile phones to be used in the House while voting took place, a decision that went against the principles of free and fair elections and secret ballots. The BJP vehemently opposed the order, arguing that mobile phones were not permitted during the elections for mayor and deputy mayor.

They further accused some AAP councillors of taking pictures of their ballots to send as proof of their vote to the AAP, compromising the fairness of the elections. The BJP demanded fresh elections be held without the use of mobile phones.

The mayor eventually agreed to ban the use of mobile phones during the elections but refused to nullify the votes already collected and hold fresh elections. This resulted in a night-long drama filled with disappointing scenes of physical violence, the destruction of MCD property, and the removal of the ballot box. The House was adjourned 15 times until 9:45 am on 23 February.

The BJP accused the mayor and her AAP colleagues of intentionally delaying the elections, while the AAP blamed the BJP for obstructing the House's functioning.

In the end, the mayor adjourned the House for the day, with the standing committee elections scheduled for 24 February at 10 am.

Several questions arise from this incident:

• Why did the standing committee elections experience disruptions while the mayor and deputy mayor elections went smoothly?

• Why did the new mayor allow mobile phones in an election that relies on secret ballots?

• Why did the session continue throughout the night, only to end in a stalemate?

• As the presiding officer, can the new mayor's conduct be considered impartial? 

It is regrettable that such unruly behaviour was exhibited in a House elected by the people of Delhi. However, who is responsible for the situation escalating to this level of misconduct? On her very first day in office, the new mayor demonstrated a lack of comprehension of the significance of her position.

As presiding officer, she became a pawn in the hands of her political party and placed her constitutional duties secondary. Oberoi permitted the disorderly scenes to unfold since she exhibited no apparent inclination to adhere to the regulations she was obligated to uphold.