Aam Aadmi Party councilor Mukesh Goyal. , photo credit: file photo
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal tweeted on Friday that he has approved the name of “seniorest corporator” Mukesh Goyal as the presiding officer for the mayoral election to be held on April 26.
The CM said that the concerned file has been sent to Lieutenant Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena. Mr Kejriwal said his decision was “binding” on the “LG” until he [Mr. Saxena] decides to refer the matter to the President.”
There was no immediate reaction from the LG’s office.
Mr Kejriwal’s tweet, however, drew a sharp reaction from Delhi BJP spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor, who argued that the LG is not bound to appoint presiding officers based on the chief minister’s suggestion and accused the latter of misleading the public. .
As per Section 77 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, the LG has to nominate a corporator who is not a candidate for internal elections to preside over the exercise.
“Nowhere in the Act is it written that the lieutenant-governor is bound to accept the suggestion of the chief minister. Many legal experts are present with the Chief Minister. It would have been better if he had understood the constitutional position before tweeting on this issue.
The appointment of the Presiding Officer has been a controversial subject. Earlier, a tussle broke out between the AAP and the LG over the latter’s decision to appoint BJP corporator Satya Sharma to preside over the mayoral elections held in February.
The AAP had then alleged that the LG had ignored the names suggested by the chief minister, which included Mr Goel. However, Raj Niwas officials hit back saying that the appointment was fair and a process was followed.
However, Ms. Sharma made a controversial announcement by saying that 10 aldermen (nominated persons in the MCD) would vote in the election of the mayor, which is contrary to the provisions of the DMC Act.
This triggered an uproar in the MCD House, which was soon followed by violent clashes between AAP and BJP corporators.
The AAP turned to the Supreme Court, while the latter directed that aldermen could not vote.