NEW DELHI: The Allahabad high court has suspended the administrative and financial powers of Lucknow Mayor Sushma Kharkwal for failing to administer the oath of office to a duly elected Samajwadi Party (SP) for nearly five months. The order, passed on May 22 in Lalit Tiwari v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi and Justice Alok Mathur.What is the case about?The dispute traces back to Ward No. 73 (Faizullaganj) in Lucknow’s municipal corporation. An election tribunal, by its order dated December 19, 2025, set aside the election of the candidate originally declared winner in that ward. It declared SP candidate Lalit Kishore Tiwari as the duly elected corporator instead. Despite this, the oath of office was not administered to Tiwari, preventing him from participating in the functioning of the Municipal Corporation. He challenged this before the high court.What did the court’s earlier ruling says?The Allahabad high court had already intervened earlier, directing on May 13 that the oath be administered to Tiwari within seven days. That direction was not complied with either.Why did the Mayor say the oath couldn’t be given?Mayor Kharkwal’s position was that the oath could not be administered because an appeal against the election tribunal’s order was pending. The court rejected this squarely. It noted that no interim stay had been granted on the tribunal’s order, and clarified that under the statutory scheme, an order by an election tribunal declaring a candidate elected takes immediate effect and must be implemented unless stayed by a competent court.What did the court ruling say?When the matter came up again, the bench recorded that despite repeated opportunities and its earlier direction, the Mayor had neither administered the oath nor provided any satisfactory explanation. Her affidavit was silent on whether the oath had been administered and gave no timeline for compliance — which the court held reinforced the impression that its directions were being deliberately flouted. The Mayor had also failed to appear in person before the court despite directions to do so.Finding no legal impediment and no reasonable explanation for the delay, the bench ordered suspension of the Mayor’s administrative and financial powers until its 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, “the court said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.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 bench observed.“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,” as quoted by Bar and Bench.On misuse of public office: The authority to exercise administrative and financial powers cannot be permitted to operate as an instrument for defeating orders passed by a constitutional court.The bench was explicit that it is not a punishment. It clarified the suspension is not punitive in nature but is intended solely to secure obedience to its earlier orders. It also clarified that the functioning of the Municipal Corporation would continue in accordance with law, treating the Mayor’s absence as a casual absence — so civic administration does not grind to a halt.
