The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the status of municipalities as essential grassroots-level democratic institutions. It upholds the autonomy and respect owed to elected representatives, curbing arbitrary removals by civil servants or political leaders.
NEW DELHI: On May 12th:The Supreme Court of India emphasized the significance of municipalities as grassroots-level democratic institutions. The court declared that elected members of municipal bodies should not be removed based on the whims of civil servants or political leaders.
The ruling came in response to the quashing of disqualification orders issued by the Maharashtra Urban Development Minister against two municipal council members.
In the case of Nandu, the Osmanabad Municipal Council vice-president, and Nitin, the Naldurga Municipal Council president, the Supreme Court overturned their disqualification orders issued in 2015 and 2016, respectively.
The Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice PS Narasimha stated
“The municipality represents grassroots-level democracy. Elected members cannot be arbitrarily removed by civil servants or political leaders simply because they may be deemed inconvenient within the system,” .
The court highlighted that elected members should only face removal for misconduct that occurred after their election, unless the pre-election misconduct directly relates to the elected representative and could not have been scrutinized during the nomination process.
The Bench invalidated disqualification orders issued in 2015 and 2016 by the Maharashtra Urban Development Minister, which sought to remove Nitin, President of the Naldurga Municipal Council, and Makarand, also known as Nandu, Vice-President of the Osmanabad Municipal Council.
“It is essential to recognize that elected representatives of public offices, such as municipal councils, deserve respect and autonomy in their daily operations, subject to the limitations and regulations prescribed by law,” emphasized the Bench in its recent order.
The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized the significance of respecting the autonomy of elected representatives in public offices such as municipalities. Elected members deserve due respect in their day-to-day functioning, subject to the limitations prescribed by law. The court emphasized that removal should not happen merely because elected members are inconvenient within the system. The ruling aims to prevent arbitrary removals based on political motivations or personal biases.
The court acknowledged that misconduct committed before an election could be considered if it is directly attributable to the elected representative and had gone unnoticed during the nomination process. However, the court clarified that such scrutiny should be an exception rather than the norm.
“When determining misconduct committed by an elected member, typically, such misconduct pertains to their actions after assuming office. However, in certain instances, misconduct occurring before the election may also be considered, provided it is directly linked to the elected representative and went undetected or unscrutinized when they filed their nomination papers,” the statement highlighted.
Background
Nandu, who faced disqualification, was accused of violating provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats, and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. He was alleged to have misused his powers by illegally constructing a house that exceeded the granted permission. However, the Supreme Court found that the house was built by Nandu’s father, and there was no evidence to suggest Nandu’s involvement or contribution to the construction.
Nitin, the other appellant, was removed from his position as Naldurga Municipal Council President based on allegations of irregularities in the allocation of garbage collection and disposal work. The Supreme Court stayed the disqualification orders against both Nandu and Nitin.
