MC proceedings: Legal opinion against it, but civic body says yes to electing Rajya Sabha member

The legal opinion, submitted by the office of senior standing counsel Anil Mehta, stresses on constituting a separate body for the purpose: “A separate body will have to be constituted, which has the power to legislate under State and Concurrent Lists, which can act as the electoral college for electing one representative for representation of UT of Chandigarh in the Council of States.”

The legal opinion further states: “If the functions of the Municipal Corporation are to be extended beyond the listed scope of functions, it would not be feasible and would go against the constitutional mandate of any such Municipal Corporation”.

In the detailed legal opinion, the office of senior standing counsel drew a distinction between the electoral college of legislatures and electoral college of MC councillors. It also clarified that Chandigarh has no legislative Assembly like Delhi, which also is a Union Territory, and the city also lacks metropolitan council, which exists in the national capital.

A senior officer of the civic body, however, said, “The adverse legal opinion does not bar the Municipal Corporation councilors from voicing their opinion on the Private Member Bill (The Constitution (Amendment Bill, 2021). They are independent to submit their opinion. They gave their assent to the bill. Now the UT Administration will send the file to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs”.

Senior Standing Counsel Anil Mehta declining to make any comment. “I have submitted the opinion, which was sought from me. I will not make any further comments,” he said.

The MHA had sent the Private Member Bill, which had earlier been moved by Congress MP from Anandpur Sahib Manish Tewari in the Lok Sabha, to the UT Administration for its opinion. The Administration further forwarded it to the municipal corporation. The MC House had sought a legal opinion on the matter.

Demanding that the Union Territory be given representation in the Rajya Sabha, Tewari had moved the Private Members’ Bill, saying that the member of the Upper House can be elected by an electoral college consisting of elected members of the municipal corporation of Chandigarh. It was mentioned in the Bill that that earlier, Delhi councillors used to elect a Rajya Sabha member when there was no Assembly there.

The Union Territories of Puducherry, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi have representation in the Rajya Sabha, while Ladakh, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli — Daman and Diu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep are unrepresented.

The Bill moved by Tewari, however, is specific to providing representation to Chandigarh in the Rajya Sabha.

Asked about the Bill, Congress leader and former MP Pawan Kumar Bansal stressed on creation of metropolitan council. “I will like to stress on the creation of the metropolitan council in Chandigarh. I agree with the sentiment of the people that we should have a member in Rajya Sabha, but before that, we need to create an infrastructure for it,” said the former Railways Minister.

Aam Aadmi Party convener for Chandigarh, Prem Garg, said the municipal councillors are “mature enough to elect a person” for the Rajya Sabha. He, however, added that the “nominated councillors should have no right to vote in poll\s to elect Rajya Sabha member”.

Senior BJP leader Sanjay Tandon said, “Chandigarh people have the right to have a representative in the Upper House. It will be beneficial for Chandigarh”.