Taking up a petition filed by Chandigarh BJP councilor Satinder Singh challenging the Municipal Corporation Act on the ground that it is against the Constitution of India as it allows nominated councillors to vote in Corporation’s meetings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notices to the Corporation, Chandigarh administration and the Centre government asking as to why the voting provision should not be stayed.
The court, on Tuesday, also issued notices to nine nominated councillor namely Anoop Sunny Gill, Prof. Aruna Goel, Dr. Amrit Tewari, Babu Lal, Major DS Sandhu (retd.), MP Kohli, Sat Paul Bansal, Shagufta Parveen and Surinder Bahga to file their replies.
There are a total number of 26 elected councillors in the Corporation and nine nominated councillors. But the nominated councillors through their voting rights have been playing a decisive role in the past in electing the Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Elections for 26 wards of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation are scheduled in the third week of December.
- Varun Gandhi Under Attack Over Defence Deals: Here’s How
- This Diwali, Let Blind Students Brighten Up your Homes With Candles & Diyas
- CBI Files Supplementary Chargesheet In Sheena Bora Murder Case
- Soha Ali Khan And Vir Das Starrer 31st October Audience Reaction
- Sahara Chief Subrata Roy’s Parole Extended Till November 28
- Simple Tips To Secure Your Debit Card From Fraudsters
- New Zealand & India Team Being Welcomed In Chandigarh
- Mumbai Call Centre Scam: All You Need To Know
- Jammu Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Appeals To Police: Here’s What She Said
- Shocker From Ahmedabad: Find Out What Happened
- Bigg Boss 10 Day 3 Review: Celebs Fail To Do Well in First Task
- Airtel Offers 10GB Data At Rs 259 For New 4G Smartphone Users
- Aamir Khan Starrer Dangal’s Trailer Launched: First Impressions
- TMC Supporters Attack BJP Leader Babul Supriyo
- Sri Lankan Navy Apprehends 20 Indian Fishermen
It has been submitted that since there is nothing in Article 243 R of the Constitution of India to give right to vote to the nominated councillors, thus provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1976, as extended to Chandigarh, are contrary to the provision of the Constitution.
It has been argued that since nominated members are not elected members, they have not taken the mandate of the electorate. Hence to give them right to vote in the meeting of the Corporation amounts to suppressing the will of the electorate and the right to exercise the vote by the nominated members tilt the balance against the wishes of the electorate.
It has further been submitted that that right to vote to nominated councillors is not only undemocratic but prone to misuse also because it cannot be expected from a nominated person to go against the will of his/her nominator.
The Municipal Corporation Act says that the Corporation shall be composed of “nine members with voting rights to be nominated by the Administrator, from amongst the persons who are eminent or distinguished in public affairs or those who have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of municipal administration.”