Allahabad HC suspends Lucknow Mayor’s powers over 5-month delay in administering SP corporator's oath

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday suspended the Lucknow Mayor's administrative and financial powers, over her failure to administer the oath of office to a duly elected municipal councillor from the Samajwadi Party (SP) for nearly five months [Lalit Tiwari v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.].

A Division Bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi and Justice Alok Mathur noted that despite its earlier order on May 13, directing that the oath be administered within seven days, the directions were not complied with.

The Court recorded its displeasure at the continued inaction even after repeated opportunities, observing that there was neither any legal impediment nor any reasonable explanation for the delay.

Holding that continued non-compliance with judicial directions cannot be tolerated, the Court ordered suspension of the Mayor’s powers until its earlier May 13 directive is complied with.

"Considering the persistent non-compliance despite repeated indulgence shown by this Court, and with a view to ensure immediate implementation of the judicial order and preservation of constitutional governance, this Court finds it appropriate, at this stage, to direct that the administrative and financial powers attached to the office of the respondent-Mayor of Lucknow shall remain suspended/ceased, to the exception of administering oath to the Corporator, till compliance of the order dated 13/05/2026 is ensured," it said.

The dispute arose after an election tribunal, by its order dated December 19, 2025, set aside the election of the candidate earlier declared the winner in the municipal elections from Ward-73 (Faizullaganj).

The tribunal declared SP candidate Lalit Kishore Tiwari as the duly elected Corporator instead.

Despite this, the oath of office was not administered, preventing him from participating in the functioning of the Municipal Corporation. Kishore challenged this turn of events before the High Court.

The Court rejected Mayor Sushma Kharkwal’s stand that the oath could not be administered due to a pending appeal against the election tribunal’s decision. It noted that no interim stay had been granted.

The Court clarified that under the statutory scheme, an order passed by the election tribunal declaring a candidate elected takes effect immediately and must be implemented unless stayed by a competent court.

Highlighting the seriousness of the defiance, the Court emphasised that public authority cannot be used to defeat judicial orders.

"The authority to exercise administrative and financial powers cannot be permitted to operate as an instrument for defeating orders passed by a constitutional court. In the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is satisfied that unless coercive constitutional measures are adopted, the repeated disobedience of the respondent would render the orders of this Court a mockery and seriously undermine the rule of law itself," observed the Court.

The Court also clarified that its suspension of the Mayor's powers was aimed at ensuring compliance with its earlier order, and is not a punishment.

"The said direction is not punitive in nature but is intended solely to secure obedience to the orders passed by this Court," the order reads.

The Court also underscored its duty to ensure enforcement of judicial directions, observing,

"Constitutional courts are not powerless spectators where their orders are repeatedly ignored by statutory authorities. The power under Article 226 necessarily includes ancillary and consequential powers to ensure effective implementation of judicial directions. Mere issuance of orders without securing compliance would reduce the authority of the Court to a nullity."

The Court further noted that despite directions, the Mayor had failed to appeared in person and had not provided any clear update on compliance.

Her affidavit was silent on whether the oath had been administered, and no timeline was given, which the Court held reinforced the impression that its earlier direction was being deliberately flouted.

While suspending the Mayor’s powers, the Court clarified that the functioning of the municipal corporation would continue in accordance with law, treating the Mayor’s absence as a casual absence.

The Court further directed the Mayor to file an affidavit of compliance, failing which the Court indicated that contempt of court proceedings may be initiated against her.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 29.

Advocate Nadeem Murtaza, Alina Masoodi, Karuna Shankar Tiwari, Mandeep Kumar Mishra, Utkarsh Vardhan Singh and Utsav Mishra appeared for Lalit Kishore Tiwari (petitioner).

Additional Advocate General Anuj Kudesia, Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh and Standing Counsel Yogesh Kumar Awasthi represented the State.

Advocates Anurag Kumar Singh and Shailendra Singh Chauhan appeared on behalf of the other respondents.

[Read Order]